March 31, 2008

3/31: Strange Bedfellows

The political blogosphere is a weird place these days. First, we have conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt (a John McCain supporter) and liberal blogger Jeralyn Merritt (a Hillary Clinton supporter) promoting the same Clinton press release about "[Barack] Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements." Next, we have conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds repeatedly linking to anti-Obama blog posts from the liberal blog TalkLeft. Finally, we have various conservative bloggers buzzing about a controversial anti-Obama ad that combines Jeremiah Wright's sermons with graphic images of the 9/11 attacks. The kicker? This ad was disseminated by a pro-Clinton diarist at the liberal blog MyDD.

It's highly unlikely that pro-Clinton bloggers and pro-McCain bloggers are coordinating their attacks on Obama. Still, this phenomenon has to be disconcerting for Obama's netroots supporters, which is probably why so many of them are calling on the uncommitted superdelegates to endorse Obama and end the race.

CLINTON: Can't Stop, Won't Stop

Most liberal bloggers reacted negatively to Clinton's Washington Post interview, in which she vowed to stay in the race until the convention if FL and MI aren't "resolved" before then:

"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong. I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "One thing to note about Hillary Clinton's Florida and Michigan strategy is the utter selfishness of it. Her best shot at getting her way on this issue is to keep observing, in a meta kind of way, that if the DNC disses Florida and Michigan by not seating their delegates, that this could hurt Democratic fortunes in Florida and Michigan in November. There are, however, any number of solutions to this problem. One, if Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama, the delegates could be seated no problem. Two, 50-50 delegations could be seated without controversy, again removing the concern about MI and FL lacking representation. Three, leaders of the Democratic Party from all factions could reiterate that everybody knew the rules going in and the voters of Michigan and Florida have nobody to blame but their own state party leaders for creating this situation. But instead Clinton has chosen path four of deliberately setting up a train wreck, hoping that by credibly committing to the idea that she's happy to sink the party's fortunes in FL and MI if she doesn't get her way, she can thereby get her way."


• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It's bizarre, disturbing and, yet, weirdly fascinating to watch Clinton in action these days. She continues to make up new rules and new realities. And, the fact that she will destroy not just the Democratic nominee, but the Democratic party becomes more obvious every day."


• TPM's Josh Marshall thinks Clinton is playing for time: "What is this new gambit for her about? Is she really serious about taking her case to the convention's credentials committee -- which seems almost certain to have a majority of Obama supporters -- and trying to get them to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates on her terms? [...] I don't think whether Hillary means it or doesn't mean it is even really the point. In a sense, I suspect both are true. Like her earlier gambits along these lines, the point is to play for time. [...] From my view, saying she's in it till August isn't about August. It's not even about June. It's about stamping out doubts about her viability and determination to stay in so she can still be in the game in April and May."

CLINTON II: Leave Hillary Alone!

Pro-Clinton bloggers are pushing back against the calls for Clinton to drop out:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Does anyone think that these folks would be calling on Hillary Clinton to drop out if there was a string of primaries or even one that it looked like Barack Obama would win in the next 30 days? Of course not. [...] If Democrats who are concerned that Clinton will take this all the way to the convention really want to make sure this ends before July 1, as Howard Dean has now called for, they'll urge Barack Obama to back remedies for Michigan and Florida. The idea that Barack Obama can claim a clear win without two states that early in the process would have gone handily to Senator Clinton is absurd. This IS her rationale for taking this to the convention, so anyone who would like to avoid that eventuality should get behind an alternative for those states."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "It is quickly being proven that the Obama network (NBC), the Obama pundits (the NBC pundits, Ed Schultz, etc.), the Obama blogs, the Obama endorsers ([Pat] Leahy, [Chris] Dodd, [Bob] Casey) and the Obama campaign do not know how to close the deal in this race...The way NOT to do it is to attack Hillary Clinton at every turn. It does not exude inevitability. It exudes fear. It alienates the Clinton supporters who would have to accept and support Obama as the nominee. It is harmful and divisive. And more pragmatically, it STRENGTHENS Clinton. [...] What these Obama supporters, from [Keith] Olbermann on down, need to learn is that Obama needs to beat Clinton, not have it handed to him. What they suggest would be the absolute worst result for Obama."
• Taylor Marsh: "If the elite DC Dems keep trying to push Clinton from this race, Hillary's supporters will sit the November election out or worse, protest the party's actions by voting for John McCain."

OBAMA: The Wright Albatross

Conservative bloggers continue to hammer Obama over his relationship with Jeremiah Wright:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In Dreams of My Father, Obama describes the very first time he attended Trinity and heard Wright preach. What was Wright's theme? A racist attack on white people. [...] By his own account, Obama wasn't repelled by Wright's racism, it was the very quality that drew Obama to Wright's church! It strikes me that Barack Obama is uniquely unfit to be President, or, for that matter, to serve in the Senate."
• RedState's absentee: "Twenty years ago, young Barack Obama was inspired by a message. That message is the same message the Wright Reverend has preached ever since, and its thematic elements are evident in all other aspects of the Senator's life. Senator Obama can't lead us to a more perfect union or bridge the racial divide. He doesn't repudiate or condemn Reverend Wright's divisive worldview. He has spent twenty years staking a claim to it, and figuring out pretty packages with which to deliver it to the White House."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's pretty clear that no form of Christianity other than black liberation theology had any chance of attracting Obama. Wright's sophomoric ranting was a perfect fit for Obama. It made him feel authentically black (see Shelby Steele on this subject), it fit the anti-American narrative Obama had picked up in the Ivy League, and it was the best church around for advancing Obama's career in Chicago politics."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter has a question for Obama: "With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology -- as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ -- do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist? Are they consistent with, or fundamentally at odds with, your expressed desire to end racial divisions in this country?"
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Barack Obama is on his way to a [George] McGovern candidacy."

On the left, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is spooked by the conservative blogosphere's preoccupation with Wright: "I'd be lying if I didn't admit that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has shaken my confidence [in Obama] a bit. This has nothing to do with the substance of the thing, which I think has been wildly overblown, but by the conservative reaction to it. Go scan The Corner and you'll find Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson and the rest of the gang still in an absolute lather over Wright. Ditto for other conservative sites. They have no intention of allowing this to die, and I have no doubt that it will resurface with a vengeance in every last swing state this fall. When Obama continues to fail to denounce Wright thoroughly enough -- and believe me, no denunciation will ever be enough with this crowd -- then eventually the crossover Republicans who were singing Obama's praises after Super Tuesday will, sadly but inevitably, use this as an excuse to switch their support to McCain. [...] I think Hillary's folks are wrong to believe that Obama is doomed, but I'm not sure I think they're delusional any more. There's every sign that we have an ugly campaign ahead of us."

OBAMA II: I Only Did This To Show You What They're Gonna Do!

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about an anti-Obama ad that combines Jeremiah Wright's sermons with graphic images of the 9/11 attacks. Interestingly, the ad was disseminated by a liberal blogger, MyDD diarist Universal, who claims to have found the ad on the pro-Clinton website Hillaryis44:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Apparent Hillary Clinton supporter Universal at MyDD wants the Democrats to realize the predicament they face in November if Barack Obama wins the nomination. He thinks the Republicans will create unfair and devastating advertising that will appeal to fear, using 9/11 imagery to derail Obama. Universal wants to protect the Democrats from this fate -- so he cranked out an ad to kneecap Obama first. [...] It's interesting to note that MyDD employed 9/11 footage that even the networks haven't used for years -- namely, the people jumping to their deaths in the minutes before the collapse. We finally get to see that again, and only in the context of one Democratic blogger attacking a Democratic candidate. [...] The 'GOP will use it' argument simply serves as a dodge for an attack on Obama over the Wright Stuff. Universal wants Obama out of the race, and has served up some fear mongering to suit that purpose."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Like the web video that mixed Wright with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, I think it's gilding the lily. Wright, coupled with Michelle Obama's statement that she's only now proud of her country, and Obama's pledges to limit defense spending, are damaging enough. Footage of the 9/11 attacks is, in this context, a distraction at best and irredeemably exploitative and tasteless to most viewers. But the MyDD poster is left with in a strange role, using the most shocking images of the decade to try to warn the Democratic party not to buy into the idea that the Jeremiah Wright matter has come and gone with minimal damage to Obama."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I am not going to say 'Thank You,' MyDD, for confusing what you'd do if you were us for what we'll do; particularly when it comes to using graphic 9/11 imagery to get John McCain elected. While I think that the footage from that day should be more public, it's not so that my Party can win elections. It's so that my country is reminded who we're currently at war with. Save your contempt for your bathroom mirror."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[This video] doesn't quite ring true to me, but I suspect it will create a stir among Democrats."

MCCAIN: An American President For Americans Who Love America

Liberal bloggers are very critical of McCain's new TV ad:

• Ezra Klein: "Note...the odd tagline, 'John McCain: The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For.' This is, presumably, in contrast to Barack Obama, 'the Kenyan Muslim President Whom Al-Qaeda Has been Waiting For.' Classy, classy."
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "And so it begins. John McCain launches his first national television ad for the general election today, which in a single minute manages to refer to the U.S. as a 'she' that must be protected in that creepy-uncle kind of way, suggest that one must serve in the armed forces to be a true patriot, and insinuate that other presidential candidates are less 'American.' Soaring to new heights of class, that John McCain."

Some liberal bloggers think McCain is making a mistake by making his Vietnam experience a central part of this ad (and, presumably, his candidacy):

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "McCain is obviously hinging his whole campaign on his POW time in Vietnam, with this spot closing with 'An American President Americans Have Been Waiting for'. This is a frequent tool he deploys when he speaks with the press, saying things like 'I haven't been questioned this hard since Hanoi'. I can't help but think that it's a foolish narrative. 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 all saw the candidate without military service elected over the candidate who had served, in several cases heroically."
• MyDD's J Ro: "It is doubtful John McCain's status as a 'war hero' will significantly boost his campaign. While America is indeed involved in a very bloody war in Iraq, I don't think many Americans feel a deep connection with it -- especially a positive one. Iraq is very unpopular, and on top of that, by and large Americans have not been asked to sacrifice for the war effort like they were during WWII and Vietnam. So, recently, while many Presidential candidates are veterans, they don't seem to get elected more often over their non-veterans opponents. For the American people these days, it's less about a candidate's war biography than their policies and how they run their races -- and that bodes ill for the old, unstable, and out-of-touch John McCain."

MCCAIN II: So When's The Next Barbecue?

Liberal bloggers continue to decry what they perceive to be the media's pro-McCain bias:

• Digby: "The 'special relationship' between John McCain and the press is particularly dangerous in one respect: he is not held accountable for his words on the stump, (while Democrats' are used against them as if they'd carved them in stone from Mt Rushmore) and he's not held liable for his gross and obvious panders and policy shifts. I'm not sure I've ever seen a politician have this kind of industrial strength teflon before. [...] When [McCain] gets 'angry' at lobbyists or rightwing ministers he's telling the truth. When he cozies up to lobbyists and seeks the endorsement of rightwing ministers, it's because he *has* to, (and he really, really hates doing it.) John McCain's heart, you see, is always in the right place, and oddly enough, everyone believes it's in the same place as is their own. I can't conceive of a greater advantage for a politician."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "In the junior high popularity contest that this election has become, McCain is the Once and Future Prom King. On the other hand, the media have locked their sights on Obama, and he can look forward to more and more constant video repetition shitstorms of the Jeremiah Wright variety. Unless someone starts pushing the media to apply some equivalent skepticism to McCain, the slog to November will be one long foot massages for St. John the Divine."

Liberal bloggers are particularly angry that the media (in their view) isn't devoting sufficent coverage to McCain's FEC problems:

• Hamsher: "We all know that the New York Times would be having a full-on, head exploding meltdown if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were acting like complete hypocrites on their signature issue like McCain is here, and it would be on the front page for months. But nary a peep. So if you know any friends who you think might be interested in signing on too, please tell them by emailing them here. We'll be delivering signatures to the FEC on Monday."
• Sudbay: "McCain is a campaign finance criminal. [...] We'll see if McCain's pals in the traditional media can get this concept. They don't like to make McCain angry -- he's volatile. And, that might get them kicked off the bus."

MCCAIN III: A Hidden Advantage?

Yglesias thinks people are underestimating McCain's chances: "I heard a liberal Obama skeptic remark a couple of months ago that it would be a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question 'who's the most electable' was 'the black guy.' I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones. At the end of the day, I do think 'the black guy' is the more electable of the two, because 'Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife' is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal at a time when George W. Bush has brought the GOP into discredit. But in a primary election, where Clinton has formidable strength, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone other than 'the black guy' to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition. Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a 'generic Democratic white dude' like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is worried: "It is very, very difficult for me to believe that John McCain can win this election, given the enormous structural advantages Democrats have this year (fundraising, partisan self-identification, the general mood for change). [...] However, another part of me also worries that what Matthew Yglesias wrote today is true, and that in terms of electability, we were always deluding ourselves that either a woman or an African-American were ever really all that 'electable' nationwide. [...] I don't know how likely it is, but the Rasmussen poll suggest that it is indeed possible that Obama does not hold a small lead over McCain, and instead actually faces a decently sized, 5-8% deficit at this point in the campaign. Might a live-interview 'Bradley effect' be inflating Obama's (and Clinton's) numbers outside of IVR polls? [...] It is certainly a possibility, and a worrying one to consider."

Open Left's Mike Lux still thinks the political environment favors Dems: "There is a trend I am increasingly noticing in focus groups where people perceive that Democrats are aligned with the future and Republicans with the past. McCain's age and irritability, Republican talking points which sound exactly the same as they have for a million years regardless of circumstances, Obama's age and multicultural background...all of it is adding up to a sense in voters that we are the future, and Republicans are the past. The future may feel a little scary, the past may feel more comfortable in some ways, but when they think about it, voters know the future is a better way to vote that the past. Now, the Presidential dynamics could still screw everything up, and drive the whole Democratic ticket down. My gut, though, is that the overall trends will weigh McCain down far more than McCain's advantages will allow him to change those trends."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Gory Prospects

NRO's Mark Levin:

"So, the Democrat party's answer to the split between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama might be to nominate Al Gore, who hasn't run in any primary or caucus. If that happens then none of the votes cast by any of the Democrat voters counted. They will all have disenfranchised. And how does a Gore nomination address all the talk by the Obama supporters that the convention must deliver the nomination to Obama as he has received (or will have received) the most popular votes and secured the most delegates? Finally, what about all the excitement over the possibility of the first woman or first black president? That goes down the tubes with the nomination of Gore. It seems to me that a Gore nomination creates serious problems for the Democrat Party. So, I would encourage the Democrats to do it."

LEST WE FORGET: Ted Danson Totally Nails Tonight Show Interview

From The Onion:

"BURBANK, CA -- Despite his initial anxiety, actor Ted Danson reported Tuesday that he 'totally nailed' an important five-minute interview aired at 12:15 a.m. with Tonight Show host Jay Leno. 'I really thought I was going to blow it, that I wouldn't know how to answer any of Mr. Leno's questions, but I somehow lucked out and had an anecdote for just about every single one,' said Danson, who claimed that he gave Leno a firm handshake when he came out, made a reference to a bit from earlier in the program to showcase his familiarity with the show, and even made Leno laugh out loud a number of times. 'Mr. Leno seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say, and at the end of the interview, he asked me to stick around.' Danson added, 'I think they'll have me back.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:56 PM

March 28, 2008

3/28: To Madame, With Love

As we reported yesterday, liberal bloggers are angry that a group of wealthy Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which they appeared to implicitly threaten to withhold future donations to the DCCC if Pelosi did not change her position on superdelegates. For many bloggers, this letter only confirmed their view that Clinton is willing to go to any lengths to win the Presidency, even if it means hurting the party. MoveOn.org and OpenLeft.com responded by circulating a petition declaring that they "support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

Righty bloggers, as usual, are sitting back and enjoying the show. However, they're also directing a steady stream of criticism at Barack Obama (whom most still believe will be the Dem nominee), focusing on his connections to Jeremiah Wright and his liberal voting record.

DEM FIELD: Hillary's Slipping?

Liberal bloggers are looking at recent polls conducted by Pew and NBC/WSJ and concluding that Obama -- surprisingly -- has had a better few weeks than Clinton:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's becoming increasingly evident that Hillary Clinton's strategy to raise doubts about Barack Obama's candidacy is backfiring. Yesterday, the latest NBC/WSJ poll showed that while Obama's positive/negative rating has dropped a bit recently, from 51-28 earlier this month to 49-32, Clinton's has absolutely plummeted from 45-43 to 37-48 today. Who would have thought that during a period that involved the [Jeremiah] Wright controversy that it would be Clinton's approval that would be the one to dip."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "The problem the Clinton partisans face right now is that Obama didn't say what Wright said, and people are too smart to realize that just because you attend a church or are friends with someone, doesn't mean you agree with them 100 percent. (Just like you guys don't agree with everything I write, yet you continue to return.)...Note [Clinton's] 'phony' numbers [in the Pew poll], and that was before the Tuzla stuff exploded. [...] So Clinton sort of walked into a trap, reinforcing a trait that people already harbored against her. I wouldn't have called her a 'phony' a week ago, but now the evidence is mounting on that front."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks the Wright controversy will hurt Obama in the general election, if not the Dem primary: "I just haven't seen any numbers though, aside from polls done right after this broke, that Obama suffers from his relationship to Wright in the Democratic primary. There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against [John] McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story."

Bloggers are also discussing recent polls conducted by InsiderAdvantage and Public Policy Polling that show Obama leading Clinton by double-digits in NC:

• Moulitsas: "With Clinton looking past Pennsylvania to North Carolina and Indiana, it's tough to see how she can win the Tarheel state. [...] The problem for Clinton is that for the Democratic primary, the white vote will be skewed heavily by the Research Triangle's 'creative class' -- educated professionals who make up a significant chunk of Obama's base. [...] And given that African Americans are expected to make up a third of the primary electorate, I'm seeing a 20-point Obama victory in NC. Indiana, split between the half that's sort of like Illinois, and the other half that's sort of like Ohio, is more fertile ground for Clinton. But North Carolina? Not a chance."
• Armstrong: "Now that we've got a couple of recent polls out of NC, it definitely looks like a strong Obama state. [...] Again, Obama is not going to be hurt much by Wright in the Democratic primary. Black voters back him strongly, the [InsiderAdvantage] poll's wild card is that most of the undecided voters are white. [...] There would seem to be a bit of an opening for Clinton to at least close the margin."

DEM FIELD II: More Schadenfreude

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to enjoy the Dem primary:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Schadenfreude is an exceedingly unappealing trait. It also is utterly and completely irresistible. [...] The chances are increasing that there will remain enough residual bitterness to make a difference in what has become not a runaway election that favors the Democrats, but rather a close election that may yet be won by the Republicans."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This primary's length and even split is unique in the four decades of the current system. Only the Walter Mondale-Gary Hart race came close, and look how well that worked out for the Democrats in 1984. It didn't generate the kind of passions and identity-politics baiting that has taken place this time, either -- and it didn't last as long as this race appears it will. [...] The sight of [Clinton] begging her followers not to vote Republicans shows the disintegration of the Democratic campaign better than anything else. Have we seen McCain having to make a plea to Republicans not to vote Democratic?"

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau urges caution: "It's hard not just to pull up a chair, pop up the corn and enjoy all the intra-party bickering between Obamaniacs and Clinton supporters, especially when there are polls that show that a significant number of Democrats might defect to McCain if their first-choice candidate loses the nomination. But let's remember that we're in a very heated period on the Democrat side. [...] It's highly possible, after all, that angry and disgruntled Democrats who are now threatening to cross party lines might reconsider once a final nominee has been selected and the race cools down. And couldn't this be especially true given the absence of any significant ideological differences between Barack and Hillary...?"

CLINTON: Threatening The DCCC = Not Appreciated

The netroots are angry that a group of wealthy Clinton donors sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi in which they appeared to implicitly threaten to stop supporting the DCCC if Pelosi did not change her position on superdelegates:

• Oliver Willis: "The more I read about the rich donors who told Nancy Pelosi to shut up, the more angry I get. I may not agree with her on quite a few issues, but Speaker Pelosi is second in line to the Presidency, the first woman to hold her position and a figure demanding of respect -- especially from people who are supposed to be her fellow Democrats. These guys seriously think that because they went to a fancy fundraiser or maybe played a round of golf with the ex-president that they really are better than the rest of us. They have every right to add their voice to the chorus supporting Sen. Clinton, but they have no place, no standing, no right to order the Speaker around."
• OpenLeft's Chris Bowers: "The funniest thing about the Liebercrat letter threatening Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC is the inflated sense of influence these donors think they have. 20 big donors threaten to pull their support for the DCCC, eh? Let's just assume for a moment that all 20 maxed out to the DCCC in 2005-2006, collectively raising $500,000 for the organization. [...] In 2005-2006, the DCCC raised $140,000,000, and $500,000 [is] a drop in the bucket. [...] If Nancy Pelosi and DCCC should really be afraid of something, it would be if MoveOn.org threatened to urge its members to withhold money from House Democrats. In the 2003-2004 cycle, MoveOn/org members contributed $180,000,000 in itemized, hard-money donations to Democratic federal campaigns. [...] The simple fact is that by this point, the netroots are far more central to Democratic fundraising efforts than Liebercrats. Someone needs to tell these donors that the 1990's are over, and ownership of the Democratic Party is no longer the province of a select few massive soft money donors."

MoveOn.org and OpenLeft.com responded to the letter by co-sponsoring a petition declaring that they "support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

• OpenLeft's Mike Lux: "We believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination. If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts. More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for."
• Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis urges his readers to donate to the DCCC: "The DCCC is the body responsible for electing and re-electing Democrats in the House. By getting her rich super-donors to threaten to stop funding the DCCC, Hillary is threatening to severely damage our efforts to hold the House in the fall. [...] Ever single Democrat in the House, all 232 of them, are SuperDelegates. Perhaps it's time we asked those SuperDelegates who are supporting Hillary, and those who are undecided and inexplicably not choosing sides, whether they agree that it's appropriate for Hillary to threaten a boycott of the DCCC, effectively holding hostage every Democrat in the House."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with his fellow netroots bloggers (as has frequently been the case lately): "[Pelosi] claims to be neutral when everyone knows she is for Obama. She claims to have to maintain neutrality because she is co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. But she has repeatedly made statements betraying that neutrality, including saying a unity ticket is impossible and that the super delegates should overturn the popular vote in favor of the pledged delegate count. She argued against revotes in Florida and Michigan. [...] She has been as divisive and harmful as any other Democrat in this contest. She should do the honorable thing and formally announce what we all know -- she is an Obama supporter. She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. And she should be quiet for a while. She has done enough damage already."

CLINTON II: Scapegoating Dean?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing another group of Clinton donors for circulating a petition urging Howard Dean to either recognize the FL and MI delegations or promise to hold new elections:

• Bowers: "The reason this really bothers me is just how misdirected it is. In particular, the petition is addressed to Howard Dean, and the guy running it wants 'the chairman to exercise come leadership.' That's all well and good, but did it ever occur to these geniuses to actually send the letter to the people with actual purview over the matter?...Instead of sending the letter to Howard Dean, they should send it to the rules committee which stripped MI and FL of their delegates, to the members of the credentials committee who will hold jurisdiction over the matter, or to Nancy Pelosi, who will chair the convention itself. You know, the people with actual power over the matter. Oh wait -- doing that would require sending the letter to people like Harold Ickes, a member of Clinton's campaign and the DNC rules committee who voted to strip MI and FL of their delegates. I guess it would look kind of strange for the Clinton campaign to be sending petitions to members of its own campaign. So, instead of sending the petition to people who actually hold purview over the matter, they have decided instead to scapegoat Howard Dean. Stay classy, Clinton fundraising team."
• Moulitsas: "The DNC is captive to its rules, and Dean is in fact exercising great leadership by refusing demands that the DNC bail out Florida and Michigan from its decision to break the party rules -- rules that all 48 other states decided to follow. If Michigan and Florida get to flout the rules, then no DNC calendar can ever be enforced, which means that there's no possible way to break the Iowa and New Hampshire monopolies. If candidates can't be assured that a rule-breaking state doesn't count, then they'll be forced to campaign on those states. Dean has already said that the DNC would recognize new contests in both Florida and Michigan. The fact that both states have passed on that option has nothing to do with Dean or Obama (he's not governor of either state, hence can't veto any such legislation). It has to do with the fact that the states which caused these problems for themselves were unable to clean up after their own mess."

CLINTON III: She Ain't Goin' Nowhere

Several bloggers on both the left and right are discussing Clinton's interview with FOX News' Greta Van Susteren, in which Clinton asserted that "she has no qualms about taking the primary fight all the way to the convention floor":

Jerome Armstrong: "Clinton sounds ready to throw down over MI and FL, all the way to the convention. The thing is, she may have an opening to go there. [...Obama's campaign] may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates."

Conservative bloggers were somewhat taken aback by Clinton's determination:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Good lord. Even I find her ruthlessness here creepy, and I'm pulling for her...[Listen to] the edge in her voice near the end -- 'I. don't. think. that. will. happen.' -- when she practically dares the party not to seat Florida and Michigan. It's of a piece with yesterday's brinksmanship by her donors in threatening to cut off, to the tune of $24 million, congressional Democrats if Pelosi doesn't stop shilling for Obama. Does she really want a relationship with the DNC that's openly adversarial by the time of the convention? We want that because it ratchets up the sore-loser effect on both sides, but why on earth would she? [...Also,] how's she going to campaign for a guy who, by her own standards, is bogus if Michigan and Florida end up getting the shaft? Think you'll be seeing this line in any McCain ads down the road?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "This is remarkable footage of Hillary Clinton making her case for allowing 'every vote to count' in Florida and Michigan. On the merits, Hillary Clinton has a point, of course. [...] But her steely determination, her simmering defiance to take this to the convention if needed is almost breathtaking. (You can just imagine that same venom: 'We will not resign the presidency!' 'We will not give them the Rose law firm records!') She is simultaneously impressive, and downright scary in her 'we will not be stopped' resolve."

OBAMA: You Can't Run From Wright

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's recent statement that he would have left his church has Rev. Wright stayed on and not apologized for his remarks:

• RedState's Moe Lane tells Obama to "stop digging": "I understand that you're pretty much just another politician, which means (to quote Stephen King) that you lie when it suits you, but don't be this amateurish about it. [...] You chose to keep your mouth shut about your pastor's message for twenty years: don't go pretending otherwise to Fox News now just because your poll numbers took a hit."
• Jennifer Rubin: "With each new utterance on the topic of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama seems to confirm his own moral obliviousness. Worse yet, he seems to have disdain for those who are troubled by his own unwillingness, even now, to break with Wright. [...] Perhaps Democratic primary voters are immune to the implications of all this. Perhaps they still fancy Obama as a great ethical leader who is going to lead us out of our history of divisiveness and small-mindedness. Or perhaps they are just embarrassed to tell pollsters they are privately offended. But in a general election contest this is not going to go unnoticed. We will have to see if he can get any Republican votes and just how many independents will be irked by this moral obtuseness."
• Meanwhile, NRO's Stanley Kurtz thinks Obama's candidacy will bring the "mother of all cultural battles": "The transformation of the 2008 campaign into a full-fledged cultural battle is what is really emerging from the Jeremiah Wright flap. A president who identifies with Malcolm X? A man who grew up alienated from ordinary American life and determined to avoid becoming a 'sellout' by hanging with Marxist professors and radical feminists? [...] Even the Clintons can't compare with this sort of rearing in sixties-leftism and academic radicalism. This background guarantees a huge cultural dimension to the campaign. Pre-Wright, it looked like an Obama nomination would avoid the refighting of the sixties Hillary would inevitably bring. Post-Wright, post-[Dreams Of My Father], etc. it looks as though Hillary and Bill were only the warm-up act for the great culture clash of 2008."

OBAMA II: Time To Pick A VP?

Bowers thinks Obama should pick a running mate: "If Obama wants to be perceived as the presumptive nominee, then he needs to start doing the things that presumptive nominees do. Probably the most visible thing presumptive nominees do is choose a Vice-President, and so that is something he should probably do at this point. [Obama's staff should] make it known that the campaign is actively searching for a Vice-President. Leaks names. Hold closed door meetings with high-profile Dems. If Obama starts acting like the presumptive nominee, then more people might start to perceive him as such."

Moulitsas: "Here's my top three [VP] picks for Obama: (1.) Bill Richardson (2.) Kathleen Sebelius (3.) Chris Dodd. They've all got their plusses and minuses. But if we got any of those three, I'd be ecstatic."

MCCAIN: Forget It, Johnny, You're Out Of Your Element!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's proposals to deal with the housing crisis, as well as his economic expertise more generally:

• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "Shouldn't McCain know what he's talking about on the economy? [...] He just parrots the 'let industry self regulate' rubbish until you want to scream. Come November, Iraq is going to be important but way down on the list of important topics for America and McCain has nothing to offer on the key topic that will be on the minds of voters. What about the economy? What exactly does McCain have to offer? I'm not seeing much of anything."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "On Tuesday, John McCain attempted to address the economy by promising he would only do what makes sense and never be dogmatic. He then repeated standard Republican dogma by excusing the Fed's massive bailout of Wall Street investment bankers while offering nothing to its Mainstreet victims. [...] McCain is vulnerable on the economy, because the [George W.] Bush Administration has blown it big time and because McCain realizes he hasn't a clue what to do about it."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "McCain's mortgage 'plan' is almost staggering in its callousness. Keeping with the general sentiment on the right that what's needed to rescue the GOP from the depredations of Bushism is a more dogmatic form of rightwingery, McCain basically proposes federal intervention to save giant financial services firms and bupkis for anyone else."
• Ezra Klein: "[McCain's speech on the housing crisis] is a speech meant to show that he gave a speech on this crisis. It's not a set of solutions. Instead, he wants various pledges from kindly companies and to hold a series of meetings on the crisis. Hear that Wall Street? There'll be meetings! So calm down already! [...This] is the McCain approach: Straight talk from a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The L-Word

Ezra Klein:

"George Zornick [of Media Matters] points out yesterday's Washington Post article asking whether Obama is...gasp!...a liberal. 'What's so strange about the story,' says Zornick, 'and others like it, is that it never attempts to define liberalism, simply presenting it as a self-evident insult.' Yep. There's never a moment in the article in which the reporter says that Obama believes liberal orthodoxy X, and liberal orthodoxy X is unpopular, and this will pose a problem for him in the election. Rather, it's the very fact that he can be called a liberal, no matter how popular or mainstream his policy ideas, that's the problem. [...]

Presumably, being 'a liberal' is bad because Americans disagree with liberal policies. But it's hard to find the policy plank of Barack Obama's that's wildly unpopular. That may make him timid -- (coughcoughmandatescough) -- but it doesn't make his ideas divisive. And if liberal just means broadly popular policy ideas, then it's obviously not a political danger. Yet it's still treated as a political problem, even though the word, in this article, is basically an empty container."

LEST WE FORGET: Dancer Risks Everything

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- Although she stood to lose her friends, her family, and everything she had worked for her entire life, classically trained dancer Cassie Lisbon, 18, put it all on the line Saturday night when she performed a highly controversial ballet/hip-hop-fusion routine at the Chicago Academy for the Arts' annual spring recital. [...]

'It was like my whole life was just preparation for that one moment,' said Lisbon, who added that everything had gone silent as she stood backstage before her routine and suddenly realized that it was this recital or never. 'I danced the only way I know how -- from the heart. Because in the 'hood and on the dance floor there are no second chances.'

'I don't care what they say,' Lisbon added. 'It's my life, and I'm playing for keeps.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

March 27, 2008

3/27: The Rising

The blogosphere is abuzz over the new Gallup poll showing that 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters would vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, whereas 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton. Conservative bloggers are delighted by this poll and see it as additional evidence that McCain is benefiting from the lengthy and increasingly contentious Dem primary. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are worried that voters' feelings are hardening and that it's going to be difficult to unite the party behind the eventual nominee. While Clinton certainly has her vocal defenders among the netroots, the criticism of Clinton in the liberal blogosphere is growing louder, as are the calls for superdelegates to end the race.

We are continually amazed by the shift in the netroots' feelings toward Obama. Just five months ago, at the height of the Donnie McClurkin controversy, it appeared that Obama's relationship with the netroots had been permanently severed. The influential liberal blogger Chris Bowers wrote a scathing "Obama Campaign Post-Mortem" in which he declared that "losing the netroots has been the downfall of Barack Obama's campaign." Yesterday, Bowers endorsed Obama and added him to the Blue Majority page on Act Blue (a fundraising project organized by Daily Kos, OpenLeft, and the Swing State Project). The surge in Obama's netroots support has been remarkable, and it's something that we never expected -- at least not while there was still a primary going on.

DEM FIELD: Holding A Grudge

Liberal bloggers are concerned about a new Gallup poll showing that 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama, whereas 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Whoever wins those numbers will flatten out considerably. But starting from such high numbers is a big, big problem."
• Ezra Klein: "If you want evidence that the Democratic primary is becoming cancerous for the party, look no further than today's Gallup poll [...] To be sure, this poll takes place in an odd context: These voters are exposed to a constant drumbeat exposing the ruthlessness of Clinton/naivete and reverse-racism of Obama. They're hearing nothing about John McCain's staggeringly regressive tax cuts, his plans for a 100-year war in Iraq, [etc...] These numbers will change no matter who captures the nomination. The only question is how long the Democrat will have to push out that message. If the campaign goes till August, that's two months of general election campaigning -- which is next to nothing."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "You hear lots more media attention being paid to the idea that Obama's supporters would bolt to McCain than to the possibility that Hillary's would. It's worth keeping in mind that you can't take it for granted, as some pundits seem to, that Hillary backers will all support Obama. On the other hand, one problem with this poll is it doesn't account for how Hillary might win. If Obama won the pledged delegate count and popular vote, and the super dels put Hillary over the top, you could easily see the number of Obama supporters not willing to back Hillary spiking."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk urges calm: "Don't panic...There is no reason to think once this very competitive and now unduly nasty nomination campaign ends the winner will not be able to patch things up."

Pro-Clinton bloggers blame Obama's campaign and Obama's supporters for driving Clinton voters toward McCain:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Seeing something like this...you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you? [...] I'll vote for the Democrat against McCain, [but] this will have to get resolved in a manner that both sides feel is legitimate if the hardcore supporters of the other candidate are to be expected to help out in November."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Too many in the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and Obama-supporting blogs believe that their demonization of Hillary Clinton has had no ill effects on Barack Obama's image among the half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. They are wrong. At this point, without the active and sincere support by Hillary Clinton of his potential Presidential run against John McCain, Obama has no chance in November. [...] I believe a Unity Ticket is the only way to achieve this."
• In a separate post, Big Tent Democrat blames Obama and his supporters for "the negativity of the campaign": "The dirtiest politics practiced in this campaign was Barack Obama's blocking of the Michigan and Florida revotes. There is nothing uglier in politics, nothing dirtier, than blocking voters' chances to vote. The stain on Barack Obama for this will not wash away with me. [...] The Clinton campaign realizes that no matter what they do, they will be declared evil. They realize that no matter what Obama does, he will be declared a saint. In such an environment, both the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign will feel no restraint to their behavior. The Media and some of the Left blogs have created this climate."

DEM FIELD II: Delicious!

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are delighted by the Gallup poll:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Awesome. [Let's assume] those numbers will decline by at least three-quarters after a bruising general campaign, but even so, seven percent of Hillary's base voting GOP would be a tasty treat on Election Day."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain must be pleased by the existence of a potential wedge against his likely foe."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Recall this next time you hear about 'Obamacans', or how Obama has a better chance of unifying the Democratic Party than Hillary."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The Gallup is noteworthy on two levels. Clearly, it shows that the Democratic nomination battle is taking a toll on party unity. But what may be even more interesting is that contrary to the popular belief that a Clinton nomination would split the party more, in this poll, it is an Obama nomination that triggers more defections. I suppose, alternatively, that this can be viewed as Obama supporters being more willing to put what's best for the party above their personal bitterness. These numbers would likely drop once the heated primary campaign is over and the Democrats start attacking McCain as running for President [George W.] Bush's third term. But still, it's a bad sign for Dems."

CLINTON: Yes, Nancy, That's A Threat

Liberal bloggers are angry that top Clinton donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which they "chastis[ed] her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count" and explicitly mentioned their past support of the DCCC:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Certain people still think they can bully politicians by waving their checkbooks in their faces. [...] One side is looking to build a consensus and win on the strength of voters, the other side is looking to divide and harm the party. It's easy to see which is which."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I have to say that I doubt threatening Nancy Pelosi to take their toys and go home if she doesn't urge superdelegates to do what they want is really the smartest way for Hillary Clinton supporters to try to win this election. It sort of re-enforces the case that the Clintons and their close allies are selfish people willing and ready to destroy the party in order to maintain control over it."
• Josh Marshall paraphrases what he perceives to be the donors' message to Pelosi: "You want the money or not?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This isn't just about superdelegates. Clinton's donors are directing Pelosi to go public and endorse Hillary's comments from a few days ago, when Hillary said that the elected delegates, the ones YOU voted for already, don't have to support Obama even though YOU voted for him. In their world, those delegates can just vote for Hillary anyway. That's what this letter is about. It's about extorting Pelosi to hand Hillary the election by stealing Obama's delegates."

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are delighted by this latest development in the contentious Dem primary:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Not content with the current state of internecine (it's just such a good word) warfare currently going on in the Democratic Party between the Clintonites and the Obamaniacs, various Clintonites have decided that Nancy Pelosi deserves a talking to. [...] In related news, Republicans are debating what is the best brand of popcorn to pop and munch on while this spectacle unfolds."
• Allahpundit: "Awesome: Hillary donors threaten to cut off DCCC if Pelosi doesn't shut up about pledged delegates. [...] Now all we have to do is sit and wait for the letter from the Obama donors threatening to cut the party off if they don't follow the pledged delegates. Exit question: Let's say [Clinton] does, somehow, win the nomination. How many bridges will this sort of hardball crap have burned in the aftermath? Note the numbers, please."

CLINTON II: The Thrill Is Gone

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Clinton:

• The Huffington Post's Ari Emanuel questions Clinton's veracity: "The real experience Hillary Clinton gained during her years in the White House has finally been revealed: she learned, just like her husband, how to manipulate words to cover up her lies. Just as Bill [Clinton] used 'It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is' in front of the grand jury to mask his lies about Monica Lewinsky, Hillary is now using 'sleep deprivation' and 'misspoke' and 'it proves I'm human' to soft sell her hyperbolic tale of ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. [...] Do we really want to subject ourselves to this verbal abuse for the next four years?"
• Daily Kos' DHinMI questions Clinton's electability: "For anyone who was sentient in 2000, [Clinton's] exaggerations and fabrications should evoke memories of Al Gore fending off the 'flip flop' charges and looking silly as he was accused of plenty of silly comments he never made, like claiming to have discovered Love Canal or having invented the internet. Unlike Gore, who in a few individual instances made ill-advised comments that then got blown out of proportion, Clinton has made the questionable claims numerous times. [...] If the serial exaggeration accusation sticks to her, it will further solidify the emerging media narrative that the only major question left in the Democratic contest is when Hillary Clinton will concede that she has lost and that Barack Obama will be our presidential nominee."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller questions Clinton's political orientation: "[Clinton subscribes to] the TV model of politics. The characteristic of a TV politician is that they assume that (a) the electorate has no memory, (b) short-term image is everything, (c) liberal politics get you destroyed, and (d) the audience can't talk back. That's why Clinton lied about Bosnia, wouldn't admit it, stabbed [Jeremiah] Wright in the back, won't go back on her obviously stupid war vote, and appears completely overwhelmed by the criticisms she's getting from the non-advocacy group liberal audience on the internet."

Other liberal bloggers are arguing Clinton has no reasonable shot at the nomination and should get out of the race:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The superdelegates have every right to vote any way they want. But I can't see them deciding to give the nomination to a candidate who isn't ahead either in pledged delegates or in the popular vote absent some genuine disaster befalling the Obama campaign. Provoking that disaster is, therefore, Clinton's only remaining winning strategy. [...] If the party leadership won't stage an intervention and try to get her to withdraw, that's just one more reason to conclude that we need new leadership."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Let's put it this way: when Hillary Clinton is sitting alongside Richard Mellon Scaife and on the same day her campaign is distributing an article from the American Spectator, you know there's a problem. [...] The 'Tonya Harding option' is probably doing more harm than good."

CLINTON III: An Honesty Gap?

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Clinton over her false statements about her '96 trip to Bosnia, which they see as additional evidence of Clinton's "mendacity":

• Allahpundit: "The beauty of the Tuzla story lies not in catching [Clinton] in a shameless lie but in the fact that it opens up everything else she's ever said to re-examination. [...] Just as the human brain can only handle nine-digit phone numbers, so too America's collective imagination can only juggle five or six egregious Hillary fabrications at a time. Right now, offhand, I can recall the Edmund Hillary lie, the Yankees/Cubs vacillation, the 'I almost joined the Marines' tall tale, the bogus southern accent, and of course Tuzla. But beyond that? Total blank. How much mendacity has spilled over the sides of the gallon-jug that is my mind and into oblivion? You've overwhelmed us, Hillary."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Aside from the 'I never had sexual relations with that woman' lie, how many can you think of? These are the ones I'm thinking about this morning: Hillary's lie about the Bosnia trip; Hillary's lie she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary; Hillary's lie she was always against NAFTA; Bill's lie that he was always opposed to the Iraq war; Hillary's lie that President [George W.] Bush 'misused' her Senate vote to go to war; Hillary's lie that she opposes drivers licenses for illegal aliens..."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Like her Sir Edmund Hillary fable, Hillary's statements about sniper fire in Bosnia are lies that aren't even politically 'necessary'...They're just something she's said because it's expedient -- they sound good at the time or she perceives them as bringing her some momentary advantage. In a sense, they're 'optional' lies. That's what's so unsettling about them. Someone who resorts to 'optional' lies is someone who really doesn't mind lying at all and does it without a second thought -- a disturbing trait in a would-be president."

OBAMA: Bloggers Used To Diss Me, Now They Write Letters 'Cause They Miss Me

Influential liberal blogger Chris Bowers endorses Obama and adds him to the Blue Majority page on Act Blue:

"Ever since the Blue Majority page was launched nearly one year ago, we at Blue Majority knew that we would add the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to the page. [...] Barack Obama has become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and it is time to start supporting him.

Importantly, my rationale for endorsing Barack Obama goes beyond his status as the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. As a progressive, there are two key ideological markers that I believe make Barack Obama a better choice than Hillary Clinton: the Iraq war and the DLC. First, Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, and rejected the neoconservative principle of pre-emptive warfare as one of his main reasons for opposing the war. Being able to identify the invasion of Iraq as a colossal mistake makes Barack Obama far more qualified to lead our country than candidates who both were, and still are, unable to recognize why the war was such a bad idea. [...Second,] while Hillary Clinton is a member of the DLC's leadership, Barack Obama has repeated refuses to be associated with the group. [...]

It is for all of these reasons that I am happy and proud to endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. I gave my first donation to his campaign today, and I urge you to do the same."

Moulitsas adds: "So today the Blue Majority sites (dKos, Swing State Project, and Open Left) added Barack Obama to our ActBlue fundraising page. All three sites held votes of their readership. Daily Kos passed the super-majority threshold a few weeks ago, SSP and Open Left did it yesterday. It's clear our communities have become heavily pro-Obama, especially as Clinton's only path to victory is via coup by super delegate and civil war, and she doesn't give a damn."

Obama hasn't won over every prominent netroots blogger, however. Moulitsas' friend and co-author, Jerome Armstrong, believes that Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright has damaged not just Obama's own candidacy but the Dem party as a whole. Armstrong argues that a recent Rasmussen poll of MO reveals "fall-out from Wright, not against just Obama, but also Clinton, and most likely against the Democratic Party in general. It's branding of Democrats Obama, and Clinton, as anti-American. [...] In a month, a 1 point McCain lead over Clinton is now 9, and a lead of 2 by McCain over Obama has become 15 percent...If McCain already has MO locked up by April, we are in deep trouble. Nevertheless, I don't think that Obama has been hurt much by Wright in the nomination contest, for a number of reasons. He's already branded himself strongly with most Democrats paying attention, and there's seems too much emotional investment on both sides, for even something as radical as this revelation, to shake up that dynamic much, but the GE match-up is another matter."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan has been one of Obama's most vocal supporters in the blogosphere, but he may support McCain in the general election: "I am still open to supporting McCain this fall, primarily because of character and decency. [...] This election, I feel, is less and less about ideology. It is more and more about conscience and judgment."

OBAMA II: No, Marc, Obama Does Have A Jewish Problem

Conservative bloggers are criticizing The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder for asserting that "there is no evidence that Barack Obama has a 'Jewish' problem":

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Barack Obama has no imperfection or shortcoming that can't be glossed over by liberal pundits. The latest gloss: he has no Jewish problem and all this 'guilt by association' is terribly imprecise and unfair. [...] Will American Jews stick by a Democratic candidate who surrounds himself with the type of advisors Obama has, who feels unable to reject his pastor even after vile anti-Semitic remarks become known...and whose foreign policy embraces the notion of meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? [...] But everything is fine, perfectly fine, say the liberal media Obamaphiles."
• Mirengoff: "Ambinder's reasoning is questionable. He compares Obama's association with [Tony] McPeak to John McCain's association with John Hagee, an anti-Catholic. But McPeak is Obama's campaign co-chair and one of his go-to guys on national security issues. Hagee has no such status in the McCain campaign. [...Furthermore,] McPeak is just the tip of the iceberg. It consists not only of Jeremiah Wright, but also of a string of policy advisers and ex-advisers (Samantha Power, Robert Malley, Zgibniew Brzezinski, and now McPeak) who are known to view Israel negatively and in some cases are unhappy with with American Jews who support Israel. It's this pattern of associations -- a spiritual adviser, a former employee with strong ties and access to Obama (Power), and several advisers -- that is problematic for Obama."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "[Ambinder's point is] fair enough. But there comes a point when one looks at the people Obama has surrounded himself with and begins to wonder. On Israel, Obama has no real track record, so voters can judge him only by his words and the words of those who advise him. Will Gen. McPeak, whose 'odious' statements on Israel have drawn condemnation from supporters and foes alike, have Obama's ear on such issues? We don't really know. But if their association is insignificant in degree and quality, why doesn't Obama toss him overboard?"
• Philip Klein: "Obama has given supporters of Israel have every reason to fear he would be the most hostile president toward Israel since Jimmy Carter."

MCCAIN: So The FEC Won't Let Me Be...

A group of liberal bloggers recently filed a complaint with the FEC, charging McCain with violations of campaign finance law:

"By his own admission, John McCain is breaking the law. His latest spending report has him $4 million over the limit he imposed on himself when he accepted public financing. We're not about to let this stand, so on Tuesday we filed an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign [...] Now we're set for a second larger delivery, on behalf of the thousands of Americans who won't stand by while John McCain breaks the law."

These bloggers are now urging their readers to join the effort by signing the petition:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The hypocrisy of the so-called 'maverick' violating a law which he championed because it suits his purposes this time around is horrifying. Even worse is the relative silence of the press on this, given the rank hypocrisy of violations of McCain's 'signature' issue and all. Does it get to be your signature issue if you are blatantly violating it in an in-your-face maneuver after being warned not to by the head of the FEC? I think not."
• Moulitsas: "Jane Hamsher filed a complaint with the FEC charging John McCain with violations of campaign finance law for spending beyond limits imposed by his decision to take public financing. McCain has claimed he is backing off that decision, and justifies it with the fact that he never received any of that public money. However, the law clearly states that he is bound by those limits if he uses the promise of those funds in order to secure campaign loans -- something he absolutely did."
• Digby: "John McCain is a fugitive from justice. He spoke at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council as a man on the lam. With every passing day, every fill-up of diesel for the Straight Talk Express, every sandwich, every long-distance phone call to a lobbyist friend, he is further breaking the campaign finance laws. He has overspent federal limits while remaining in the public system for the primaries. And the netroots is doing something about it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Return Of The '70s

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat compares contemporary cinema to '70s cinema:

"I do think that our neo-Seventies moment has produced movies and (especially) television shows that rival the best work done in that decade -- not only highbrow work like The Wire and The Sopranos, Zodiac and No Country For Old Men, but thrillers like the Bourne films (the first two, especially) and B-movies like 28 Days Later. (I think Danny Boyle's zombie film is a vast improvement on the work of George Romero, in fact, though that's a minority opinion.) But it's certainly true that the more explicitly politically-infused material is considerably weaker this time around, often to the point of embarrassment."

LEST WE FORGET: Awww

McSweeney's Kathy Salerno lists "Titles of Love Songs I Would Write for People Like Me":

"A Friend Again, Naturally"

"Hopelessly Inexperienced Sexually"

"Mind Boyfriend's Back"

"Wishing, Hoping, Checking Your MySpace Relationship Status"

"Never Gonna Ask You Out, Never Gonna Make My Move"

"Give Me Just a Little More Time (By Then You'll Surely Be Dating Someone Else)"

"Are You That Anybody?"

"Let's Give Them Something to Prove I'm Straight"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:47 PM

March 26, 2008

3/26: Pinned Down By Blogger Fire

Hillary Clinton's rough stretch in the political blogosphere continues, as she is now under assault from both liberal and conservative bloggers for falsely claiming that her plane came "under sniper fire" during a '96 trip to Bosnia. Liberal bloggers think this controversy illustrates the flimsiness of Clinton's claim that she possesses significantly more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama. Conservative bloggers agree that the difference between Clinton and Obama's foreign policy experience is minimal, but they also think that this incident reflects Clinton's lack of veracity. Should Clinton emerge as the Dem nominee, it seems likely that conservatives will seek to paint her as a "serial fabulist" with a "life-long adversarial relationship with the truth", in the same way that conservatives portrayed Al Gore as a serial exaggerator during the 2000 campaign.

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton for her decision to weigh in on the Jeremiah Wright controversy, which they see as a transparent attempt to change the subject from her Bosnia misstatements. It is becoming increasingly clear that most (but not all) liberal bloggers believe that Obama will be the Dem nominee, and they want Clinton to leave the race before she inflicts too much damage on the IL senator. Unfortunately for them, Clinton does not appear willing to comply.

DEM FIELD: Where Do We Go Now?

Open Left's Chris Bowers summarizes the state of the Dem race: "A consensus seems to be forming that Hillary Clinton has only a very slim chance to win the nomination. Recent articles in The New York Times and The Politico are examples of this. Further, the consensus is not only that Clinton has a very small chance, but that what chance she does have requires creating a civil war in the Democratic Party by suing superdelegates to overturn the popular vote, deny the nomination to the candidate with the most grassroots support in the history of the party, and cancel out the overwhelming choice who are the most loyal Democratic voting group of all. In other words, Clinton's only longshot hope is to win the nomination while creating an intra-Democratic civil war that could drive a wedge down the coalition for years."

Bowers continues: "While I agree with this perspective, I also think it would be bad for Clinton to drop out when she holds an average lead of 16% in the upcoming, major primary of Pennsylvania. Momentum in the general election is often determined by momentum in the primary campaign, and as such it is essential that Obama is not seen as 'backing in' to the nomination. [...] Between now and June 4th, there are four chances for Obama to earn the sort of victory that would knock Clinton out of the campaign, and provide him with the momentum he needs for the general election. [...] An absolutely slam dunk scenario for Obama to clinch the nomination on May 7th would be to put up a decent showing in Pennsylvania, sweep Indiana and North Carolina, reach 1,627 pledged delegates on May 6th, and at least draw even with Clinton in superdelegates by May 6th. If he can pull off all four, be will become the presumptive nominee in just six weeks time."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias likes Bowers' scenario: "Chris Bowers sketches out a plausible and appealing scenario in which Barack Obama wraps up the nomination on May 6. Among other things that would be good about such a scenario, it's worth noting that at this point the main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race. If she drops out and endorses Obama on May 7 or shortly thereafter, it'll be easy for Michigan and Florida to be 'forgiven' in late May and allowed to fully participate in a rubber stamp convention in exchange for promising to never do it again."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas agrees that Obama could end the race by winning NC and IN: "This may be were it all comes down -- two weeks after Pennsylvania on May 6. Both Indiana and North Carolina should favor Obama. If he can't close the race out there, then it gives Clinton an excuse to fight on, no matter what the math (and accordant reality) have to say."

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks NC will be crucial for Clinton: "The other day I saw Chuck Todd on TV speaking about a Bill Clinton event in North Carolina during which the former president told North Carolina voters, as he had done to Texas voters weeks before, that it's in their hands, that if Hillary Clinton wins North Carolina she'll be the nominee. Chuck Todd's assessment of that statement: 'and you know what, he'd be right.' [...This] is why the Clinton campaign has dispatched Ace Smith, who spear-headed Clinton's California and Texas victories, to North Carolina and not Pennsylvania. While PA is touted as must-win for Clinton, it's actually become a will-win and [NC] is becoming Clinton's latest must-win."

DEM FIELD II: Can We Wrap This Up Already?

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly impatient to take on John McCain:

• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "The longer we allow John McCain to run unopposed -- while at the same time bashing each other over the head with petty insults and attacks -- the worse our chances are in the fall. I sincerely hope the Democratic leadership realizes this."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "We really need to be focusing our energies on John McCain. That guy is getting a free ride -- and he's dangerous. [...] Let's figure out a way to wrap up the Democratic nomination now so we can get to work."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[Clinton]'s been voted off the island. It's time for her to go."

CLINTON: Netroots Wars

Yesterday we linked to Jerome Armstrong's and Big Tent Democrat's reactions to Moulitsas' claim that Clinton seeks to win the nomination via "a coup by superdelegate." Yesterday afternoon, Moulitsas posted a follow-up response:

"Given that Clinton cannot win the pledged delegate count, and that it would essentially require Obama to quit the race to lose the popular vote count, the only route to the nomination for Clinton would be one that would have [Big Tent Democrat] 'up in arms'. Nowhere have I said that this would violate the rules...All I have said is that it would be a coup by super delegate -- the overturning of the popular results by the party elite.

The rules state that Michigan and Florida don't count. The rules state that all other states -- even the small ones, the ones with blacks, and the ones which have coffee drinkers -- matter. The rules state that this is a delegate race, with voters directly electing pledged delegates at (mostly) the congressional district level. None of this helps Clinton out, so she and her surrogates have set out to make arguments that seek to minimize and belittle the system we have now, whether it's the caucuses, or 'small states', or 'black people', or whatever.

While a coup by super delegate wouldn't violate the rules, the arguments that the Clinton campaign are advancing to those super delegates, the media, and their supporters make a mockery of them. Makes sense. When your only path to victory requires making a mockery of the rules, I suppose you have nothing left but to mock the rules."

Big Tent Democrat responds: "If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the popular vote leader (as me, Kos and a cast of a thousand bloggers, NBC, etc, expect), then any action by the super delegates to subvert such a result would be outrageous and wrong...but as Kos acknowledges, NOT against the rules. [...However,] revotes were planned for Michigan and Florida -- revotes that were completely within the rules and more importantly, completely in the interest of the Democratic Party (but NOT in the interest of Barack Obama's chance to win the nomination, though certainly in his interest in winning the general election.) Barack Obama blocked the proposed revotes in Florida and Michigan. To my way of thinking, this means Obama needs to have a margin in the popular vote that exceeds 500k, the amount of margin one could reasonably argue Clinton may have gotten from revotes in Florida and Michigan."

BooMan agrees with Moulitsas that the consequences would be disastrous if Obama won both the popular vote and the pledged delegate race and superdelegates gave the nomination to Clinton: "Provided that Obama receives the nomination after winning the pledged delegate count, there is no reason for 'Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats' to lose confidence in the process. Their preferred candidate simply lost. It happens. But if Obama wins the pledged delegate count and still does not gain the nomination, his supporters (most especially but certainly not limited to African-Americans) will be deeply, deeply disillusioned with the process. [...] If Jerome Armstrong cannot anticipate the rift such an outcome would create in the Democratic Party, then he isn't qualified to opine on American politics. African-American turnout in the general election will be severely depressed, and the damage will be lasting."

CLINTON II: Duck And Cover

Liberal bloggers are mocking Clinton's claim that she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke" when she falsely claimed last week that she landed under sniper fire during a '96 trip to Bosnia:

• Moulitsas: "If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it's a lie she's said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.? Remember, she's clothed and wearing makeup at that hour, so chances are, she's not getting much sleep."
• Yglesias: "So apparently Hillary Clinton was 'sleep-deprived' when she forgot that she'd never dodged sniper fire while running from a plane in Tuzla. All 'misspoke' theories of the case seem to me to founder on the fact that the version of the story that got her caught was only the most extreme version of a narrative of danger she's mentioned repeatedly throughout the campaign."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[Clinton] said it four times over four months. She sent out scores of aides to defend the comments -- comments she said FOUR TIMES. And now expects us to believe that she only said it once a week ago, so it was a slip of the tongue (mind you, it was a minute long slip of the tongue)?"

Meanwhile, The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen explains why this controversy is a problem for Clinton: "The point about [Clinton] 'inflating' her foreign policy experience is a genuine problem. Clinton's claims about playing key policy roles in conflicts in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, and Rwanda also appear to have been exaggerated, in some instances, quite a bit. But it's this Bosnia anecdote that's likely to cause the most trouble, in large part because there's a video of her talking about the danger she overcame, and another video showing very little danger at all. [...She] exaggerated one of the underpinnings of her entire candidacy."

CLINTON III: Pants On Fire

Conservative bloggers are also mocking Clinton for her Bosnia story:

• Michelle Malkin: "This is how a Clinton -- take your pick: Hillary, Bill, or Chelsea -- makes it through the day. Better living through self-delusion. Seeking to burnish her foreign policy leadership credentials, Sen. Clinton has repeatedly peddled a harrowing anecdote about dodging sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996. [...] When Sinbad, the Washington Post, and every fact-checker on the Internet and under the sun debunked her tall tale, Sen. Clinton doubled down. She dissed Sinbad as a mere 'comedian'. (He just tells jokes. She is a joke.) She asserted that she and her compatriots ran for safety with 'our heads down'. She clung to her story that she 'had to be moved inside because of sniper fire'. And she embellished further [...] Behold the Democrat choices for president: One candidate whose twenty-year spiritual guru has an adversarial relationship with America -- and another who has a life-long adversarial relationship with the truth."
• RedState's absentee: "Could there be a more clear-cut case of lying? [...] There's no way she simply got mixed up. This was a description of an event that never occured. Could you honestly mix up being told about being shot at and actually being shot at? I know I couldn't. Could you mix up 'no ceremony' with 'they moved the ceremony'? I couldn't. She didn't merely exaggerate a threat, she described literal events that never occurred. I know a word that perfectly describes such an act: LIE. Hillary lied about Bosnia."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The Clintons are, after all, accomplished 'embellishers,' and it should come as no surprise that reality does not match her tales of grandeur."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The NY Times headline today on the series of lies Hillary Clinton has told about her trip to Bosnia reads, 'Hillary Seeks To Soften Impact of Misstatement.' By not even putting 'misstatement' in quotes, and by making it singular when Clinton told multiple lies, the Times is buying into the Clinton spin that it was just an innocent mistake. As these priceless videos show, that's just not very credible."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey wonders if Clinton is a "serial fabulist": "Has Hillary Clinton's Tuzla fantasy opened a bigger can of worms for the presidential aspirant? [...] The collapse of her credibility this week, after repeating the story at least four times during the campaign, calls into question her personal anecdotes, especially those that paint her in the kind of crusading light as this does. Hillary can expect greater scrutiny of her claims, especially since the media got burned by its credulity on Tuzla."

CLINTON IV: Hillary Goes There

Liberal bloggers were very critical of Clinton's decision to weigh in on the Wright controversy. Many saw it as a transparent attempt to change the subject from the Bosnia controversy:

• Benen: "It's hard to overstate how disappointing this is. Clinton waited until the story had died down and then decided to make her first public comments on the controversy, going after Obama for staying with his church. I know Clinton is willing to fight as hard as possible for his nomination, but tactics like these are pretty low. This may sound cynical, but my guess is that media interest in Clinton's debunked Bosnia story had become too great a distraction. [...] What's more, we now have a situation in which John McCain defended Obama against Wright-related charges, and Mike Huckabee defended Obama, but Hillary Clinton sat down with editors of a conservative newspaper to reignite a fire that had already largely gone out."
• Sudbay: "Clinton [is trying] desperately -- and I mean desperately -- to change the subject from her lies about the Bosnia trip. [...] But what they don't get is that it just looks extremely desperate and pathetic for Hillary to evoke Rev. Wright now. The Bosnia trip scandal isn't going away. Clinton made that trip a centerpiece of her campaign. There's too much video and too many lies told by the candidate herself."
• The Huffington Post's Greg Saunders: "Here we are, in the tail end of a primary season in which the losing challenger for the Democratic nomination has sunk to reinforcing right-wing smears against her party's likely nominee in a transparent attempt to distract the media from the fact that she's been caught in multiple lies about her experience."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "You can always tell when a scandal story has peaked and is ebbing, almost down to the minute: when your political opponents start to raise it explicitly against you. That was the minute I knew Bill Clinton was going to weather the Monica [Lewinsky] story -- the moment when Republicans first started hitting him over it. It took a few days. And I remember rejoicing about it at the time. Same thing here with Wright. The Clinton camp can see that it's drifting. So they're deciding to stoke it. Also useful to get the Tuzla stuff off the front page."

Other bloggers thought it was foolish and divisive of Clinton to question Obama's religious choices:

• Bowers: "Do we really need to be telling other people where they are praying? Is that a pandora's box we really want to open in this country? Does a country built on religious freedom need one of the three people vying to lead the country comment on where one of the other two candidates should be praying? Really? That's a good thing for the country? That's a good thing for Democrats?"
• BooMan: "[Clinton] should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton's response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for attending his church. If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. This is especially true because she can only win on the backs of the superdelegates."
• Ezra Klein: "If Clinton is to have any chance, any chance at all, African-American voters need to feel comfortable with her ascension. If they don't, and if Obama is rendered unelectable, than the convention will sooner choose a third candidate ([John] Edwards, Gore, etc) than elevate Clinton and risk a schism with one of the party's key voting blocs. Clinton, for her part, could have scored some points with this group by forcefully defending Obama on Wright. But every time she takes a shot at one of these racially-charged controversies, she makes her own nomination less likely."

OBAMA: Not Kosher?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about The American Spectator's Robert M. Goldberg's article about Obama foreign policy advisor Merrill McPeak, whom Goldberg describes as "anti-Israel and anti-Jewish":

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Why does Barack Obama have so many foreign policy and national security advisers whose statements about Israel and American Jews are problematic? We've written at length about Samantha Power, perhaps his closest foreign policy adviser until she was forced to resign for insulting Hillary Clinton. We've also touched on Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. And by now everyone who follows these things realizes that Obama's long-time spiritual adviser Rev. Wright hates Israel passionately. Now comes evidence that Gen. Merrill 'Tony' McPeak...is also hostile towards Israel, viewing its positions as preventing peace from breaking out in the region."
• Morrissey: "The animus towards Israel among Obama advisers has begun to form a distinct pattern, one that shrugs and wan, partial denials cannot hide."
• Philip Klein: "I do not think that everybody who is critical of Israel is an anti-Semite, nor do I think that Obama should be considered an anti-Semite because of McPeak's derisive remarks toward Jews in New York City and Miami. However, I do think there are plenty of reasons for anybody who is a supporter of Israel -- Jewish or not -- to be concerned about Obama based on hispublic statements and the companyhekeeps ."

Speaking of Samantha Power, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Power defended some of her past statements during a speech at the Columbia Univ. School of Law: "Former Obama aide Samantha Power may be repentant for calling Sen. Hillary Clinton a political monster, but on the other issue that marked her resignation, she is not conceding an inch. [...] Power called Obama's willingness to meet, without preconditions, world leaders with whom America did not always see eye-to-eye, one of the turning points of the Democratic primary [...] She emphasized that, unlike President [George W.] Bush, Obama would put greater focus on the general welfare of the Iraqi people (looking at population displacements, health conditions, economic insecurities), when considering U.S. policy in that country. She also drew a picture of an Obama administration that was filled with different viewpoints and congenial debate."

MCCAIN: Come On And Take A Free Ride

Liberal bloggers, who are convinced that the media takes it easy on McCain, are praising Free Ride: John McCain and the Media by Media Matters' David Brock and Paul Waldman:

• Atrios: "While we all have a general sense of the degree to which the national press will bend over backwards to excuse anything St. McCain does, Free Ride documents this history with horrifying but entertaining detail. More than that, it shows how at odds the national media, who worship Saint McCain, are with the local media in Arizona, who know a bit more a bit the real senator. [...] Even more than other campaigns, this presidential race will pit the Democrat against McCain and his 'base,' the mainstream media. Combatting and shaming the media into covering McCain and his past accurately will be the job all of us have."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "You had always known, more or less, that John McCain's natural constituency was the Beltway media. With press darling Joe Lieberman, it's been the buddy movie that never ended. Did you know how extensive it was, though, or did you sort of wonder if it was just you and your liberal friends imagining things? Wonder no longer. Media Matters' David Brock and Paul Waldman decided to investigate McCain's relationship with the press, cataloging just how much slack our Gotcha! journalistas have cut the Smooth Talk Expressionist."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: To Err Is Human, To Forgive Is Divine

NRO's Byron York:

"It caught my eye as a flash on Brit Hume a few moments ago, but here is a photo from Hillary Clinton's visit today to the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In this picture, she is seen talking to none other than Richard Mellon Scaife, the owner of the paper and the man who once said that the death of Vincent Foster was the 'Rosetta stone' of the Bill Clinton administration. (He also funded the so-called 'Arkansas Project' at The American Spectator.) We've heard reports of a rapprochement between Scaife and the Clintons of late, and the Pennsylvania primary is fast approaching, but this is still a pretty striking picture."

LEST WE FORGET: Hillary Says She 'Misspoke' About Wrestling Bin Laden

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"...In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Clinton told host Tim Russert, 'I wrestled bin Laden in his cave in 1998 and had him pinned to the ground before the bastard got away.'

But a review of Sen. Clinton's official White House schedule from that period revealed that the then-First Lady was nowhere in the vicinity of Mr. bin Laden on that day, but was instead greeting a group of honor roll students at Disney World in Orlando.

'I may have misspoke about what went on that particular day,' Sen. Clinton said today. 'But it was a very busy time for me, what with having that knife-fight with Kim Jong-Il and all.' [...]

'Everything Hillary Clinton says is true,' said her new spokesman, the author James Frey."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:45 PM

March 25, 2008

3/25: Mounting Frustration

As the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton grows increasingly heated, so do the arguments in the liberal blogosphere. Several prominent liberal bloggers were annoyed when Clinton supporter/IN Sen. Evan Bayh suggested that superdelegates consider "who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes" when deciding whether to support Clinton or Obama. These bloggers perceived Bayh's Electoral College metric as yet another attempt by the Clinton camp to spin the results in order to show that Clinton is ahead. Pro-Clinton bloggers responded by arguing that all proposed metrics for superdelegates to consider are necessarily arbitrary -- including selecting the candidate who's won the most pledged delegates.

These debates between pro-Obama bloggers and pro-Clinton bloggers will undoubtedly continue for the next few weeks, if not months. However, primary fatigue is clearly setting in among many of the leading liberal bloggers, who feel that the Obama-Clinton race is no longer benefiting the party and is in fact benefiting John McCain (as polls suggest). But is there anything the netroots can do to stop the Dem race from lasting until June (at the earliest) or the convention? Right now, the matter appears to be out of their hands.

DEM FIELD: Running On Fumes

Several liberal bloggers think the Clinton-Obama race is no longer constructive:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "OK, I'll say it: the nomination campaign is played out. [...] Basically, after fourteen months of hashing out the differences between the candidates on virtually every other metric, with four weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, with no revotes in Florida and Michigan, and with less than 20% of the voting actually remaining, it seems that all we have left is a long argument about electability. That is a problem because, let's face it, long arguments about electability are really boring because they are ultimately unprovable and go nowhere."
• Bowers continues: "Barring something shocking, like the Michigan delegation being seated as is, the delegate math is clearly laid out before us, and Obama will slowly slog toward clinching the nomination sometime between May 20th and June 21st. For now, unfortunately, we are stuck in a holding pattern of an endless electability argument. I don't think that this sort of campaign will carry with it the benefit of the first two months of the year, where an intense, high-profile Democratic nomination campaign was largely helpful to the party. That is demonstrable by McCain taking the lead in general election matchups over the past two weeks. Without any voting to maintain interest between Mississippi and Pennsylvania, the void has been filled with electability and race (with the latter really being about electability). That is not the kind of discussion that Democrats need to win."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "It seems to me that the real reason the Democratic primary race has gone from heated to vicious (at least among the candidates' supporters, if not the candidates themselves) is precisely because we're in this awkward seven week hiatus in which there are no actual elections being held. [...] Without [elections], we are stuck with the same, unchanging stubborn set of facts: Obama has a relatively narrow lead which, under the DNC's rules, is nevertheless extremely difficult to overcome. And each side is left cycling over into more and more heated iterations of the same arguments, like a cascade into mounting levels of mania [...] That doesn't mean that both side's arguments have equal merit. For my part, I think the Obama campaign has far the better part of it. But I think it does explain why we're now in this self-escalating spiral."

DEM FIELD II: Like A Train Wreck In Slow Motion

Conservative bloggers are enjoying the increasingly nasty Clinton-Obama race, and they're convinced that McCain is benefiting:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "While the Republicans warm up their veepstakes, the greatest show in town is still the Democratic primary race. On one hand we have the Lady Macbeth of politics. She's proven ready to burn down the Democratic party if that's what it takes to grab the nomination. On the other hand we have the rookie who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his life other than convince about thirteen million people to vote for him [...] At this rate McCain (who already attracts independent voters that detest this sort of mud wrestling) may have a double digit lead over both of them by the beginning of the summer. So to these ill-mannered Democrats, their Republican adversaries can only say: Keep up the good work! Ain't it grand?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Perhaps the Democrats should listen to the Cassandras forecasting disaster. According to Rasmussen, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have begun to melt down in the crucible of an increasingly nasty primary fight. McCain leads Hillary by seven and Obama by nine, well outside the margin of error. [...] Clearly, the negative campaigning from both Democrats has proven remarkably effective...for McCain."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Back in 1992, when George Bush the Elder and Ross Perot were killing each other, Bill Clinton used what was called 'The Manhattan Project' (in light of the Democrats' decision to hold their convention in New York City that year) to rehabilitate an image that had taken a battering during the course of the primaries. John McCain, it would appear, is ready to undertake the same kind project himself. And Democrats are giving him the time to do it."

CLINTON: Spinning Into Oblivion?

Several prominent liberal bloggers were annoyed by Sen. Bayh's suggestion that superdelegates consider "who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes" when deciding whether to support Clinton or Obama:

• Marshall: "The system is based on pledged delegates and super-delegates. Period. There's a set of rules everyone agreed on. The wisdom of those rules is irrelevant at this point. The Clinton campaign is entitled to do whatever it wants to get superdelegates to come over to her side to even out the pledged delegate deficit. My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader. And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules. But these constant efforts to say the rules aren't fair are just silly, and truth be told I think they're more undermining of the Clinton campaign than they realize."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Josh [Marshall] is right, of course. The Clinton campaign has realized that the rules don't work in their favor, that if we follow the rules as agreed upon before the first caucus vote was cast in Iowa, that they have no chance of winning. Part of me is bitter about this, since I've been railing against our stupid primary system (and the caucuses) for years, but that never mattered to the Clinton camp at the time. It only mattered after she lost the election based on the rules. The media narrative is finally starting to reflect this reality. Again, as I noted before, the only way Clinton can win this race is with a coup by superdelegate, which would necessarily create civil war in our party. And of course, Hillary Clinton doesn't care. That's the bottom line. All the other noise in this contest are just ex post facto justifications for that coup attempt."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's just not credible to keep searching for new ways to juggle the results to get the conclusion one wants. If the Clinton campaign had recommended this metric tally in, say, December, it'd be easier to take it seriously now. As it stands, though, it starts to look like the campaign will keep looking for new counting methods until it's pleased with the one that shows its candidate ahead."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I believe that by the Duhem-Quine thesis there are actually an infinite number of arbitrary criteria we could devise to prove that our preferred candidate is 'really' winning. For example, Obama's leads in delegates and votes are relatively narrow, but I bet that if we counted by mass his disproportionately male base of support would have a much larger edge."
• Atrios: "I do my best (though it's hard) not to judge the candidates by their campaigns or surrogates. [...] But for several weeks now there's just been this steady stream of downright insulting stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign. It's the kind of stuff that would come out of Ari Fleischer's mouth back in the day. Stop it!"

CLINTON II: Time To Pack Up And Go Home?

Several liberal bloggers are echoing Moulitsas' call to end the primary campaign as quickly as possible:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Hillary Clinton has lost. She cannot win the Democratic nomination without causing a civil war in the Democratic party. Her recent actions, especially comparing herself to, and praising, McCain while undermining Obama, make it appear that she is willing to do just that -- split the party in two. [...] The Superdelegates and the DNC need to decide if they want two more months of the vitriol, and a divided, bitterly divided party, or do they want a Democratic White House come next January? It's time for some leadership -- or something more akin to an intervention. Otherwise, we're on a path to Mutually Assured Destruction."
• Bowers: "Here is the choice I think we face. On the one hand, we can pretend that Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination, and that the credentials committee and the majority of the delegates at the convention won't be controlled by some non-Obama power once Obama reaches 2,024. On the other hand, we can face reality that Clinton has no real chance to win the nomination because she further lost ground in March, a time when her own campaign admitted it needed to gain ground. Second, we can pretend that having prominent Democrats and the entire Republican Noise Machine use the same talking points on our presumptive nominee won't damage our general election chances, or we can start to build a united front against these attacks and succeed where we failed in 2004. Third, we can focus on the nomination campaign forever, or we can start to focus our attention on some downticket campaigns, too. From where I sit, the best path we can follow right now is to try and end the nomination campaign as quickly as possible, because Barack Obama is going to be the nominee and we desperately need some big wins in November up and down the ticket."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Matt Stoller explains how he became "a moderately strong Obama supporter": "One, Bill Foster's victory in IL-14, and the coattails Obama showed, really do signify something. [...] Two, Clinton has basically shown, through her misstatements around taking incoming fire in Bosnia to her belief that Iraq was worth it to her praise of McCain as commander-in-chief to her recent suggestion that Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan be on a board of experts to deal with the credit crisis, that she is a completely transactional politician. If there's a problem, Clinton's first instincts are to put a right-wing spin on it and get a bunch of wealthy establishment guys in room to design a plan to fix a problem they caused. That's not how Obama approaches problems."

Atrios explains why he is "increasingly" (albeit tepidly) leaning toward Obama: "I've long said that if I ever felt like a candidate supporter I'd say so, but I just don't. [...] I've said I tend to lean Obama more often than I lean Clinton, and that's increasingly true when the campaign insults my intelligence on a regular basis. Longtime readers of this blog should understand pretty well why Hillary Clinton isn't an obviously perfect fit for me, but longtime readers should also know why Obama isn't one either. I've been rather critical of the senator from Illinois many times. [...That said], there are times when I've rooted for Obama because I want this thing to be over. Clinton can stay in the campaign as long as she likes, but I do wish she'd have focused her fire on McCain, instead of arguing that he's so awesome that Obama couldn't beat him."

CLINTON III: Pro-Clinton Bloggers Fight Back

Clinton's online supporters and sympathizers are pushing back against the criticism of the Clinton camp:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong doesn't share Marshall's belief that "the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader": "[Marshall] must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a 'pledged delegate leader' trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of 'rule change' he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a 'different set of rules' than the one that exists."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat accuses Marshall of harboring a pro-Obama bias: "Josh's feigned bafflement at the difficult task of counting the votes is thoroughly amusing, indeed, to coin a phrase, almost parody. [...] Josh basically just whined about how unfair the Clintons are being and then wraps up his piece accusing the Clinton forces of whining about 'unfairness.' The irony is stark and the 'undermining' of TPM as a reliable source of information and opinions about this campaign continues apace."
• Big Tent Democrat also accuses Moulitsas of harboring a pro-Obama bias: "Kos uses the pejorative term 'coup' to describe the Super Delegates not voting for the pledged delegate leader. [...] It seems to me that it is Obama supporters like Markos who are complaining that the rules MAY NOT favor Obama. It is they who are whining that the rules permit Super Delegates to pick a nominee who is not the pledged delegate leader. [...] The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt thinks superdelegates should support Clinton because she leads in all of the important metrics: "Hillary's ahead in popular vote and electoral votes, in the big states and the states most likely to go Democratic in November. She's ahead in the big states that are critical for Dems in November. Obama's got a small lead in overall pledged delegates and has won more Republican states that have a slim to no chance of going blue in November. The superdelegates need to consider who will bring it home for Democrats in November. The results so far indicate that person is Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks the Clinton camp could be making more effective arguments to superdelegates: "[Bayh's argument] is essentially a variation on the big state argument the Clinton camp has been making for a while now [...] The problem with it is that it implies a correlation between primary performance and general election performance, which is hardly a proven correlation. [...] A far more compelling argument to superdelegates, I would think, is to constantly remind them about Michigan and Florida. Not because they're 'two of the big four' necessarily but rather because had they moved to legal dates they would have represented two additional early Clinton wins, likely big ones, and the mere fact that Obama would have had to compete there would have meant fewer resources for him to expend in other states. In other words, Obama's pledged delegate and popular vote leads, such as they are, have an unavoidable asterisk next to them."

CLINTON IV: Look Out For Snipers!

In a departure from their usual Obama-bashing, conservative bloggers are currently directing their fire at Clinton for falsely claiming that her plane came "under sniper fire" during a '96 trip to Bosnia:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In support of her claim that eight years as First Lady qualify her as a foreign policy expert, Hillary Clinton has told dramatic stories about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and having to run for cover. I'm not sure that, even if true, this would endow her with much diplomatic skill, but it has become clear that Hillary's story is false."
• RedState's streiff: "Is telling the truth and respecting the intelligence of your audience a disqualifier for the Democrat presidential nomination?"
• Ed Morrissey: "Caught by two videos of her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia in March 1996, Hillary Clinton's campaign has the unenviable task of acknowledging that Hillary lied about the danger she faced in flying into one of the most secure facilities in the Balkans. [...] Not only did she 'misspeak', but she almost outright called Sinbad a liar when he corrected her. Hillary apparently figured she could bluff her way out of the lie she constructed in Tuzla, even though Sinbad was on the same plane and provided eyewitness testimony. That bluff got called by the Washington Post and by Newsbusters, when contemporaneous video showed Hillary strolling off the plane, with her 15-year-old daughter in tow, and no sense of anxiety on anyone's face."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "What's really revealing about this little brouhaha is that it appears that after the first time she told the story and questions were raised, there was no one around to tell Hillary to drop the story. A good candidate needs someone around them they trust who have the guts to tell them when they mess up, and Hillary was making a very avoidable mistake by telling a story that was so easily checked. (It also didn't pass the smell test -- the Clintons would expose then-16-year-old Chelsea to potential sniper fire?)"

MCCAIN: Bomb, Bomb Iran

The netroots are again criticizing McCain for falsely claiming that Iran is training Al Qaeda in Iraq, which they see as evidence that McCain wants to invade Iran:

• Digby: "In [McCain and George W. Bush's] comments of the last few days about Al Qaeda and Iran wanting to build nukes to threaten nations, it all leads in one direction: war with Iran. The only question is whether it would happen before Bush leaves office or after McCain takes office. Either way, you can tell by their 'gaffes' that they both believe that Iran is a threat to the US. And there is no doubt that they both believe the US has the right under the Bush Doctrine to preempt Iran. Anyone who votes for McCain in November is voting for war with Iran. It's that simple."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "These Iran/Al Qaeda episodes occurred when McCain was traveling around the Middle East with his closest ally, warmonger Joe Lieberman -- who has already explicitly advocated an American military attack on Iran -- and it involved McCain's repeatedly making patently false assertions in order to tie Iran to Al Qaeda and to exaggerate wildly the Iranian threat, exactly the sort of deceit that misled large majorities of Americans into believing that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

The netroots are also criticizing the media for failing (in their view) to provide adequate coverage of McCain's foreign policy views:

• Arianna Huffington: "Does the country want another George Bush in the White House? Voters should at least be given all the facts so they can make that decision for themselves. The problem is that the media have got an image in their creaky narrative machines about John McCain and they're sticking to it. It's much easier to just present the tried-and-true version of McCain that that has prevailed since 2000 instead of presenting the new McCain as he's become: cavalier, dismissive, and lazy about the facts."
• Benen: "McCain has made a series of bizarre and demonstrably false claims about foreign policy, military affairs, and national security. Some have registered in the media, some haven't. Either way, reporters have already made up their minds -- McCain knows his stuff, even when he doesn't, and all reporting on the senator's campaign will be refracted through that agreed upon prism."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum unloads on the media's coverage of McCain: "Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets [McCain] get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. 'Man of conviction' cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it. Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?"

MCCAIN II: Campaign Finance Hypocrisy?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing McCain for breaking the speneding limits imposed by the presidential public financing system:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "When you're a maverick, the spending limits don't apply. At least that's what McCain's lawyers say. See, McCain was all for public financing of his campaign before he was against it. He says that he withdrew from the public matching fund. There's just this little problem with the FEC who has yet to grant his request to withdraw because they don't have enough information about that $4 million loan he took out against the collateral of public funds."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith announces a contest for Firedoglake readers: "Here's the contest for all of our readers: whomever digs up the most clearly applicable quote from St. John McCain on the importance of following campaign finance laws -- a statement filled with finger-wagging solemnity about the dastardly, smarmy politicians who would dare to try and end-run the vaunted McCain-named campaign finance laws in all their glory -- will win a copy of John Anderson's book 'Follow the Money' [...] Sen. Do As I Order But Not As I Do needs to be hoisted on his own sanctimonious, federal election law violating petard, don't you think?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It Ain't Over Till It's Over

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder responds to Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen's argument that the Dem race is all but over:

"...The '10 percent' that the Clinton adviser is hanging onto is premised on the unlikely event that that some fatal flaw will be discovered about Barack Obama. Perhaps he has a second family living in Idaho...that type of thing. [VandeHei and Allen] dismiss this as silly. Surely it is not an argument. But it's not dumb. Two weeks of discussing Obama's relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright has pushed Obama's net favorability ratings down and did indeed freeze the superdelegates. Obama's negatives in some of the robot polling are above 50% now. [...]

John Edwards, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid -- if these folks came together and threw their weight behind the nominee, Hillary Clinton would probably drop out by the end of the week. But the party elders have in some cases explicitly abstained from making such a determination because in their minds, the racetrack is open and horses, to beat that metaphor to death, are still trotting around."

LEST WE FORGET: Ghost Ridin' the Prius

Stuff White People Like explains why white people like San Francisco:

"The City of San Francisco has a very multicultural population that ranges from white to gay to Asian. Within white culture this known as 'ideal diversity' for its provision of exotic restaurants while simultaneously preserving property values. [...] However, it is important to be aware of the fact that regions outside of San Francisco feature many people who are not white, gay or Asian. They are greatly appreciated during the census, but white people are generally very happy that they stay in places like Oakland and Richmond. [...]

Still, the presence of other minorities are welcomed by white people for so many more reasons than just statistics! Much in the way that white people in Brooklyn feel a strong and unfounded connection with The Notorious BIG, white people in San Francisco feel the need to identify with rappers from the East Bay. Interestingly enough, the further they venture from San Francisco, the stronger their need to represent their region.

'Oh man, I went to the Too Short show last night. So hyphy man, so hyphy. You should come by some time and we'll ghost ride the Prius.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:56 PM

March 24, 2008

3/24: All Over But The Media's Shouting?

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen's Politico piece, in which they declare that "Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning," was received very positively by liberal bloggers. Most of these bloggers share VandeHei and Allen's belief that the media is portraying the Dem race as tighter than it actually is, and many are calling on uncommitted superdelegates to endorse Barack Obama in order to prevent the race from lasting until the convention. Growing numbers of liberal bloggers are expressing concern that the Obama-HRC battle is hurting Obama's chances of defeating John McCain in November. Naturally, Clinton's online supporters are pushing back against the idea that Obama's victory is assured, but they are definitely in the minority in the liberal blogosphere.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to hammer Obama over his connections to Jeremiah Wright. It seems that the trends that we first noticed two weeks ago -- in which righty bloggers direct their fire at Obama while lefty bloggers direct their fire at Clinton -- are reasserting themselves.

CLINTON: Please, For The Good Of The Party...

VandeHei and Allen's Politico piece prompted a chorus of agreement from liberal bloggers:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen argue in this piece in The Politico, the press has been largely complicit in maintaining the fiction that the Democratic nomination race is not for all intents and purposes over. The obstacles in the way of Hillary Clinton are virtually insurmountable. And her now-sizable deficit among pledged voters is only one of them. Everyone in the press, probably including us, should be much more candid about that."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "When was the last time a reporter from a major outlet pressed Clinton on when she will drop out of the race? If the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama's campaign thought it had no better than a 10% chance of getting the party's nod, would he hear the question a lot more often?"
• Atrios: "While it would be absurd to claim that Clinton is treated well be the press -- she's treated horribly in general -- it's also the case that anyone else would be subjected to a louder and increasingly derisive drumbeat for her to get out of the race."

Meanwhile, many liberal bloggers are arguing that Clinton is helping McCain by staying in the race:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Hillary Clinton's already lost the nomination. Under the circumstances, I find it maddening that the party leadership isn't acting to push her out of the race. Dragging things out 'till the convention stands a much, much, much higher chance of hurting Barack Obama's chances in the general election than it does of securing Clinton the nomination. I understand the calculation from the point of view of the heart of the Clinton campaign -- McCain beating Obama in the general means the Clintons still control the party, so there's no need to worry about helping McCain and you might as well hold on and hope lightning strikes. But the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner."
• Ezra Klein: "[This is] a game of make-believe that's keeping the likely nominee locked in a useless and damaging deathmatch with Clinton, and keeping the party from turning its attention to John McCain. My understanding is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't want to labor ineffectually beneath another Republican president, but at some point, they're going to have to ask themselves if that's important enough to actually do something about. For now, the Clinton campaign is like a rushing linebacker who doesn't know the winning pass was thrown and caught. They're not going to change the game, but they could really hurt the quarterback."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "There is no path for Hillary to the nomination at this point except an ugly, ugly path. Given the delegate math, she can only win this by a combination of fear-mongering attacks and behind the scenes deals with superdelegates. That would be terrible for our party, and for the entire progressive movement."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "With the delegate numbers nearly insurmountable, with the media declaring her candidacy nearing its end, with money running tight, and with more and more prominent Democratic leaders likely to join [Bill] Richardson in calling for Democrats to unify and turn attention to defeating John McCain, the question becomes more urgent: when will Hillary Clinton admit that Barack Obama will be our Presidential nominee?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It's time for the Democrats to wrap up the nomination process. Enough already. It's time for Hillary Clinton to rein in her attack dogs. Stop the incendiary conference calls. It's time for the party leaders to start showing some leadership. John McCain must be defeated in November."

CLINTON II: Who Says She Has To Go?

Obama's online critics are pushing back against the notion that Clinton should get out of the race:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Contrary to the inevitability campaign Obama supporters are currently waging (what else is left after failing to win it outright on votes or to change the superdelegate rules in the middle of the game...) high level Democrats still have reservations about Barack Obama as the nominee and Obama supporters would be well-advised to accept and respect this fact. Where are all those superdelegates who were waiting in the wings to come out for Obama after March 4? If it's so impossible for Hillary Clinton to win, why aren't they ending this thing right now?"
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I'd advise the Obama supporters to be calm. Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. You should also be informed that the rules do not say that, therefore, the candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates is the winner. Besides, if Clinton does have a good couple of next few months, there's a likelihood that she'll be able to point toward having the pledged delegate lead, when counting the states of FL & MI. The popular vote also remains very much up in the air..."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up. Who are we to decide what the voters will do? The voters get to decide. Not the pundits. Not NBC. Not the Left blogs. But contempt for the voters, of Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and beyond is the new watchword for Obama supporters -- from NBC on down. It is quite unseemly."

CLINTON III: Anticipating A Bloodbath

Most conservative bloggers seem to believe that the Dem fight is headed to the convention:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Everything that is written in [the Politico] story is true...up to a point. It is certainly the case that it would take an electoral miracle of unprecedented proportions to vault Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama in terms of pledged delegates and the popular vote. [...] But that is not the aim of the Clinton campaign. The aim of the Clinton campaign is to get this contest to the point where neither Clinton nor Obama have the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination and then for chaos to reign. [...] The Clintons won't give up. They never do when there is a chance for power still existing."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Democrats all hope they can somehow select a candidate prior to their convention and avoid the bloodbath that could result if the superdelegates choose the nominee in a floor fight. But it's hard to see how that could happen. [...] Absent unexpected results in the remaining primaries, it's hard for me to see how the Democrats can avoid a pitched battle in Denver."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If the organizers of Recreate 68 get their way, it won't be an argument that moves to agreement and closure, but one that explodes in protests and a rocked political establishment. Forty years later, we are back in a campaign centered on war and race, with one party led by its most established leader and the other deeply split. How deeply split."

CLINTON IV: Shooting Holes In Her Sniper Story

Liberal bloggers are mocking Clinton for falsely claiming that her plane came "under sniper fire" during a '96 trip to Bosnia:

• DHinMI: "This is a very peculiar lie. This isn't a campaign-ender, but it's certainly a significant screw-up, and it provides an opportunity for the media (and maybe the Obama campaign) to ask why the hell she made it up. [...] Why would Clinton say she was under fire when she wasn't? It's not like she could possibly have confused her imagined incident with another incident in which she was shot at. Hillary Clinton was never in combat, she was never under fire."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The fact that [Clinton] can't tell the difference between having an eight year old read her a poem on a tarmac and fleeing through a hail of bullets doesn't give me a lot of confidence in her grasp of military affairs."
• Yglesias, dripping with sarcasm: "I don't recall that sniper incident, but I was only fifteen or so at the time, and now video has surfaced showing contemporary news coverage of the sniper attack on Clinton, and even capturing a portion of that harrowing dash -- including a moment when Clinton uses her body to shield a little girl from danger. Impressive stuff, I urge everyone to watch the video and see for themselves."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I would be open to some explanation of how this episode and her recounting of it isn't dishonest. The whole 'she's experienced' because she was first lady has always been kind of ridiculous, but much less ridiculous than the notion than voting for the war and refusing to acknowledge the mistake makes you serious or demonstrates some capacity to exercise good judgment."

CLINTON V: You're Either With Us Or Against Us

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the Clinton camp after Clinton strategest Mark Penn called Richardson's endorsement of Obama "not insignificant" and Clinton advisor James Carville compared Richardson to Judas:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that Jesus did not die on the cross for Hillary's superdelegates."
• Yglesias: "Maybe the Clinton camp's inner circle has just totally lost touch with reality and they really think that sort of thing is appropriate. The mindset seems a little bizarre, though. When Richardson accepted the appointment as U.N. Ambassador from Bill Clinton was he supposed to take it for granted that that constituted an implicit promise to endorse Clinton's wife's presidential campaign years in the future? That he'd signed-on for lifetime service to the House of Clinton?"
• Benen: "The message isn't subtle -- if Bill helped you, you owe Hillary. This is a mistake. Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate with tremendous skills. She'd make a fine president. But seeing her top supporters arguing publicly that she and her husband are one in the same, and that her campaign really is about restoring Clinton rule, does more harm than good."

OBAMA: This Controversy Ain't Over, Barack

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Obama's speech about race and, more generally, Obama's connections to Wright:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I've been listening to Barack Obama's apologists gush about how wonderful his Philadelphia speech was, and how important it is to have a serious discussion of race in America of the kind Obama now has initiated. Obama himself made the latter claim. So my question is: if this discussion is so important, why did Obama commence it only after he had been exposed as the patron of an anti-American racist?"
• NRO's Mark Levin: "I found absolutely nothing in Obama's speech that I haven't heard before -- from slavery to more spending. He was not motivated to give the speech because he wanted to bravely address issues of race in America. He could have given that speech earlier, but he was too busy trying to avoid the subject when he was riding high in the polls. No, this speech was motivated by political expediency."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I refuse to let Obama off the hook by forgetting why he was forced to make such a speech in the first place. Many of its boosters claim that those of us who are still focused on the Jeremiah Wright issue are missing the bigger picture and minimizing the historical importance of the speech. [...] But the racist and anti-American comments by his spiritual mentor are a legitimate issue, especially given the fact that Obama has such a thin public record. The speech may have been a great sociology lecture, but it was a grand diversion."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Obama is giving us a 'national conversation on race,' but mostly by letting a lot of white people realize just what circulates, unremarked, in the black community."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Obama and the punditry know that we cannot have such an honest conversation [about race], given that any 'new' dialogue 43 years after civil-rights legislation would touch on inordinate crime, illegitimacy, drug use, imprisonment, and black racism in addition to white racism -- and thus logically lead to emasculation of the present privileged traffickers in grievance and reparations. Who would wish to put a soothing Obama et al. out of business?"

On the other hand, NRO's Charles Murray continues to defend Obama: "I understand how naïve it is to read a presidential candidate's speech as if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final point: It's about time that people who disagree with Obama's politics recognize that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human being, not a politician. [...] I can't vote for him. He is an honest-to-God lefty. [...] But the other day he talked about race in ways that no other major politician has tried to do, with a level of honesty that no other major politician has dared, and with more insight than any other major politician possesses. Not bad."

NRO's John Derbyshire responds to Murray's post: "I don't get the sensitivity and slack-cutting towards Obama that Charles Murray's post typified. Obama's the enemy -- a far-left Democrat. We should be attacking him at every weak point. That's politics. A pro-Obama emailer whines to me that the Pastor Wright business is 'a Swift Boating of Obama.' Well, duh!"

MCCAIN: Where's The Outrage?

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are complaining that the media is ignoring McCain's relationships with controversial preachers (specifically, John Hagee):

• Benen: "Despite condemnations from the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the DNC, Catholic groups on the left, Catholic groups on the right, and Jewish groups, none of the major dailies ran a single article about the Republican presidential nominee cozying up to a bigoted megachurch preacher or the outrage it caused in some circles. As such, Hagee wasn't 'catapulted into national controversy.' He should have been, but political reporters collectively decided to give him a pass, for reasons that are still unclear."
• Yglesias: "The Wright/Obama story and the Hagee/McCain story are imperfect parallels in several directions, but surely John McCain's successful efforts to court the endorsement of an anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish preacher who admires McCain's foreign policy as likely to bring about the apocalypse deserves more than no coverage whatsoever from the country's major newspapers."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "In light of the standards governing media campaign coverage, John McCain's ties to religious extremists -- including those with a lengthy list of fringe and reprehensible views -- remains one of the most under-reported stories."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Outside The Bubble

John Derbyshire:

"Knee-deep as we have all been, for over a year now, in political chat, we forget how very little most Americans care about politics. A week or so ago a very intelligent, professional acquaintance said to me: 'Hey, this Obama guy is something new, isn't he? It would be so cool to have a black President!' It was obvious, from the remark and subsequent conversation, that Sen. Obama had just then, for the first time, impinged on my friend's consciousness, in mid-March of 2008.

I am sure it won't be at all difficult to turn up people in mid-October saying: 'Hey, this Obama guy is something new...'

Robert Conquest argues in one of his books that this widespread indifference to politics is one of the great strengths of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

LEST WE FORGET: Study: 93% Of People Talked About Once They Leave Room

From The Onion:

"LOGAN, UT -- According to an alarming new study published Monday in the American Journal Of Sociology, the vast majority of Americans are critically discussed after leaving a room occupied by two or more additional people. [...]

'Our findings will come as a great shock to the millions of Americans who have assumed people do not speak derisively about them as soon as they are out of earshot,' said Dr. Edward Phillips, a professor of sociology at Utah State University and lead author of the study. 'This phenomenon affects nearly everyone. If you have ever feared that people whom you considered to be good friends were mercilessly mocking and insulting you shortly after you left their presence, your fears are almost certainly 100 percent correct.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:57 PM

March 20, 2008

3/20: Concentrated Fire

For the first time in months, liberal bloggers are mounting a sustained attack on John McCain. After McCain made false statements about Iran training Al Qaeda in Iraq, liberal bloggers joined Barack Obama in hammering McCain for his remarks. Some bloggers claim that McCain's "gaffe" reflects his fundamental misunderstanding of the Iraq situation, while others argue that McCain is deliberately pushing a false link between Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq in order to further his hawkish agenda. Either way, the fact that so many lefty bloggers are collectively criticizing the GOP candidate is a notable departure from the Obama-Hillary Clinton war that has consumed the liberal blogosphere for the past few months. Is this a turning point in the netroots' coverage of the race, or merely a blip? We'll have to wait and see.

MCCAIN: Johnny Be Wrong

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize McCain for falsely asserting that Iran is training Al Qaeda in Iraq:

• AMERICAblog's A.J. Rossmiller: "It's increasingly clear that despite having somehow gained a reputation for foreign policy expertise, Senator McCain doesn't have a grasp on the most basic -- and important! -- details of Iraq or even the greater Middle East. [...] He recently claimed, multiple times, that Iran is training al Qaeda elements from Iraq. Iran, of course, is a Shia theocracy, and al Qaeda a Sunni terrorist group. This is like claiming that the RNC is training Democratic congressional candidates. Seriously -- this is a HUGE error. Not a single other government official or expert has claimed anything like this. It wasn't a momentary gaffe or slip; again, he said it multiple times. It's increasingly clear that he truly doesn't understand the situation...five years into the war."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "It's almost impossible to imagine the wingnut/media outrage circus if Obama or Clinton had claimed Iran was training al Qaeda. I see Sludge Report headlines like, HOW CAN WE TRUST OBAMA TO FIGHT THE WAR IF HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE ENEMY?, a series of passive-aggressive NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME posts from Glenn Reynolds, declarations by [Chris Matthews] that the race is already over, grim-faced former generals expressing their disapproval on MSNBC, Fixed News playing the clip over and over and over...Truly delicious. Commander-in-chief threshold my ass."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "There are only two plausible possibilities which could account for McCain's false statements: (1) he was engaged in the standard tactic of war advocates -- perpetrated ever since 9/11 -- of just asserting that disparate (and even warring) Muslim factions are allies with one another in the Endless War without there being any evidence that this is so (Saddam loves Al Qaeda which loves Hezbollah which loves the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which loves Iran which loves the Taliban which loves Hamas which loves Osama bin Laden, etc. etc.), or (2) McCain is just completely ignorant of the most elementary facts about the region and the war in which the media has decreed him to be a Great Expert."

MCCAIN II: Was This A Gaffe, Or...?

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein prompted a fresh round of anti-McCain posts when he noted that the GOP candidate continued to push this Iran-Al Qaeda link in a campaign statement released yesterday: "Sen. John McCain has done it again. For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday."

• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "McCain -- Lying, Stupid, or Both?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "We're heading into senility territory here, or at best serial lying."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Why do people keep calling it a 'gaffe'? If he's stating something that's flatly wrong three times in two days, it's not a gaffe, it's a talking point. All recent evidence has indicated that McCain has simply internalized the central Bush lesson of his war: if the facts are against your desired policy, make up new facts and continue on your way."
• dday: "Equating enemies and scaring the public is in [McCain's] best interest. It plays into his stupid and shortsighted sense of 'honor' that stipulates we can never leave Iraq. Furthermore, McCain is at the least belligerent toward Iran, and it serves his interests to believe they are in league with Al Qaeda. Whether McCain is confused, believes what he wants to believe, or is actually deviously conflating various enemies to create a sense of the 'Other' is immaterial. The consequence is the same; more intractable conflicts and a catastrophic foreign policy."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[McCain's] record actually shows he's one of the most dangerous people we could have in the Oval Office in coming years -- not just because he's a hothead in using the military, but more because he seems genuinely clueless about the real challenges and dangers the country is facing."
• Atrios: "Increasingly I think McCain is genuinely clueless about pretty much everything, and the press just gives him pass after pass. Unlike most of us, they've apparently enjoyed the last 8 years and the fruits of the last time they gave the clueless fantasyland idiot a pass."

Even The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who views McCain quite favorably, is critical of the AZ senator's remarks: "Is McCain ready on day one? These repeated gaffes about al Qaeda being helped by Iran are beginning to make me wonder. I assumed he was more cognizant of the complex realities of Iraq than our current president. And it's staggering to me that it hasn't even occurred to McCain that exploiting some of the divisions between Shiite and Sunni Islam might actually be a tactic worth considering in our increasingly complex battle over there. Was this more Bush-Rove dumbing-down for the American public? Or is he really that ignorant?"

MCCAIN III: Craving A Big Mac

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly antsy to take on McCain:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "It's common knowledge in the Senate that, aside from work he's done in the Armed Services Committee, McCain doesn't know anything about anything. He's basically an ignorant old man that understands the military and nothing else, including diplomacy, economics, or any other aspect of national security. He is announcing that he wants to stay 100 years in Iraq, and his cabinet choices will reveal that he is intent on a war with Iran. A lot of savvy unaligned progressives who aren't backing either nominee are beginning to get really scared about McCain's capacity to get into office as a moderate. I don't mean to pull the panic button...but this guy is an extremist and it's about time people focus a little less on Clinton-Obama and more on McCain. Frankly, there's little most of us can do about the primary contest, so it's better to focus downticket and on McCain anyway."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I think it's hard not to look at John McCain's surge to a 67 percent favorable rating and conclude that Democrats are paying a pretty steep price for the never-ending nature of the Obama-Clinton race. It's just impossible for attacks on McCain to gain any real traction without McCain having an official opponent who can press those attacks."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks Dems need to focus on issues other than Iraq in order to beat McCain: "It wouldn't be a stretch of an assumption to believe that if the vote were tomorrow, McCain might win, and riding in on experience and leadership. The biggest problem with McCain for Democrats, is that Iraq is falling off the charts in terms of being an issue of concern to voters. [...] What's the effective narrative being formed against McCain that's not simply over Iraq? We might be fighting the last election over that issue, missing the best way to beat McCain."

OBAMA: Step In The Arena

Several liberal bloggers are praising Obama for his Iraq speech yesterday, in which the IL senator criticized both Clinton and McCain:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Good. I get [Obama's] criticism of Clinton, mainly in response to Clinton's criticism of him earlier this week, but as I've said umpteen times, the more these two go after McCain, the better. This is all the more important when McCain gives them a golden opportunity -- such as repeatedly screwing up the basics of Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Overall, not a bad speech. There wasn't too much new in it, and I wish he had taken on some broader themes, but overall it helped his cause. Not only was he firm about wanting to leave Iraq (thus addressing Hillary's exploitation of Samantha Power's remarks that Obama would 'revisit' withdrawal when be became president), but he gave good reasons for wanting to leave. On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 7."

Meanwhile, McCain's false claims about Iran and Al-Qaeda prompted several liberal bloggers to (once again) criticize Clinton for boosting McCain's credibility on national security issues:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Compare these two messages coming out of the Clinton and Obama campaigns just one day after McCain all but admitted he has no idea what's going on in Iraq. [...] Notice how [Obama's] campaign goes directly after McCain and [Clinton's] goes and directly backs up McCain on the issue of national security at the very time when McCain's credentials on national security are being called into question. Remind me again which campaign is supposed to be the one that understands how to run an extended hardened effort against the GOP? Don't think for a second that the comments from the Clinton campaign -- from the former President and the candidate herself -- suggesting that McCain is strong on national security, conceding the issue to him, aren't going to hamper Democratic efforts up and down the ballot come November. It's at times like these that you really have to ask, is it really worth it?"
• Ezra Klein: "One problem with Hillary Clinton's strategy of praising John McCain's national security experience to diminish Barack Obama's credentials is that, if she ends up facing McCain, her ability to attack will be much constrained. [...] If she attacks him in a debate, he can just give a Reaganesque chuckle and say, 'well Senator Clinton, a few months ago, when you were running against Senator Obama, you were praising my experience and judgment. Now you're attacking it. But I haven't changed.' [...] How can you blame the media for accepting McCain's aura of experience if even Hillary Clinton is granting him that advantage?"

OBAMA II: The Blame Game

Several liberal bloggers are blaming Obama's campaign (and/or Obama's supporters in the MI legislature) for preventing a re-vote in MI:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "With every Obama blog whining that Hillary Clinton should drop out, it is worth remembering this key point -- the reason the Democratic contest will not be decided by the Convention is because Barack Obama did everything in his power to remove certainty from the contest by acting to block revotes in Florida and Michigan."
• TAPPED's Paul Starr: "The burden for the failure falls clearly on Senator Obama's supporters, who, perhaps understandably, didn't want to risk the psychological impact of a defeat in Michigan at the end of the primary season. But having prevented any new vote in Michigan, Obama's campaign may well have given up any moral claim to oppose seating of the delegates elected in January. As of now, the Democrats are planning to hold a national convention without what would have been the third and fifth largest state delegations. [...] I can't think of a recent case in which a political party has inflicted on itself such severe and unnecessary damage."

This criticism didn't stop John Aravosis from going after Clinton: "If we lose the election in the fall, it will be all Hillary's fault. It's time for Howard Dean and the party leaders to step in and stop Hillary before she starts a civil war (and one is coming) and destroys our party."

OBAMA III: Damaged Goods?

Several liberal bloggers are noting that the Wright controversy has dealt a significant blow to Obama's poll numbers:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama has definitely taken a pretty big hit over Jeremiah Wright, as demonstrated by his declining position in national polls against both Clinton and McCain. Now, this isn't the first time Obama has taken a hit, and it is entirely possible that this current downturn is yet another in a series of entirely temporary negative stretches for his campaign. However, in this particular case, I think it is more likely that Obama has suffered some lasting electoral damage. [...] Widespread broadcast of excerpts from Wright's sermons has, in one formulation, damaged Obama's ability to offer a 'dignified climbdown' to white voters who are still uncomfortable, but not outright opposed, with an African-American as President."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas links to SurveyUSA polls showing Obama dropping in both OH and MO: "All in all, a pretty solid hit on Obama. We'll see how resiliently he can bounce back."
• Josh Marshall: "There does seem to be some real evidence now that something is allowing John McCain to draw even with the Democratic candidates in hypothetical national match ups and that Clinton is moving ahead against Obama in nationwide matchups between the two of them. On top of this there's a poll out of North Carolina showing a neck and neck race between Obama and Clinton, a state that has been expected to be a strong one for Obama. [...] These come after a string of days where the major campaign coverage has focused either on Obama's problems (mainly Wright) or his efforts to deal with those problems. And neither is good news for him in the short run."

Meanwhile, Armstrong takes his fellow liberal bloggers to task for not sufficiently denouncing Wright's comments: "There's little doubt that most of the blogosphere or online progressives or whatever you'd like to call it, back Obama. It was over 70 percent for those that attended the Take Back America conference. [...] I was disgusted by what Wright said, and didn't mind saying so. I said that Obama needed to throw Wright under the bus and run him over a few times, to move on from this fiasco. But unfortunately, Obama didn't, or couldn't, do it. That's too bad, and will be costly for his chances. But it's even worse that, caught up in a presidential contest in which denouncing Wright has been seen only through the prism of supporting Obama, progressives have been silent about Wright's wrong and divisive words. That's a terrible precedent to have set."

OBAMA IV: Wheeeeee!

Conservative bloggers are delighting in Obama's slide in the polls and buzzing about Clinton's momentum:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Obama's numbers are dipping hard and it's starting to become possible to imagine that the bleeding will get so bad that the Democratic Super Delegates may break hard towards Hillary to prevent a general election disaster."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Because of the Clintons' effective deployment of the race card within the Democratic Primary, super delegates are getting nervous. They know they were put in place to avoid the party going far left. And they are worried that Obama, the unknown quantity, could be painted as far left by the GOP. [...] The Democrats want to win. If the super delegates can't get to the White House with Obama, they will throw him under the bus faster than he threw his grandmother under the bus -- damn the popular vote in the primaries."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Are Hillary's advisors right that Wright will doom [Obama] in the general? I'm still skeptical, but...dude. Note the Ohio numbers in particular. Think any superdels will be seeing that on their fax machines this morning? All signs point to yes!"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama's not toast, but polls show the toaster getting warmer. [...] I think it's entirely possible that the superdelegates will bet that enough African-Americans get over it and vote Democrat in November, rather than give up the entire white working class vote (and, arguably, Latinos and the elderly)."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand, thinks Obama will still be the nominee: "It is very difficult to imagine how African Americans or the young Obama vote could be reconciled to [superdelegates giving the nomination to Clinton]...I have to conclude that wiser heads will prevail and that Obama, bruised as he is by the Wright controversy and tainted as he is by the latest goings-on in the Rezko trial, will be the nominee. The risk of a shattered party base and of a nominee with very high and fixed negative ratings is too great, and the possibility of repairing the damage to Obama's image too high to see other than the nomination of the candidate with the most votes and delegates."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why We Went Into Iraq

Peter D. Feaver, writing in The Weekly Standard:

"In these times, political leaders are asking voters two questions: Will you vote for me, and do you have the stomach for continuing this costly war? [...] Public opinion on both those questions is a function of two underlying attitudes: the retrospective opinion of whether the war was a mistake, and the prospective opinion of whether the war can ultimately be won. [...]

In 2004, the prospective attitude (will we win) was the long pole in the tent for supporting the continuation of the war, but the retrospective attitude (was it the right thing) was the long pole in the tent in determining presidential choice. Put simply, President [George W.] Bush beat Senator [John] Kerry in part because, at that time, a majority of Americans said they still supported the original decision to invade. To win voters, McCain may have to address their concerns about the original decision to invade Iraq."

LEST WE FORGET: The Downside Of March Madness

Cracked lists "6 Characters Who Ruin Every NCAA Office Pool." Here's our favorite:

The Guy Who's Winning In His Other Pool

This guy just clearly doesn't know what he's doing. He's got all the one seeds losing the Sweet 16 and has American in the Final Four. Rather than just keeping his mouth shut while everyone else talks about their still-alive bracket, this guy will try to convince everyone that he's picked every single game correctly in his dad's office pool. 'See this was just my upset bracket. I wasn't even trying on this one. In my dad's office pool I haven't lost a single game in the last three years. Whenever I drop by the old man's office, they call me "the kid" and carry me around on their shoulders.' In all likelihood, this guy's father doesn't love him or is dead...

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:45 PM

March 19, 2008

3/19: Partisanship Is Back!

Barack Obama may seek to unite the American people, but yesterday's speech about race -- and the Jeremiah Wright controversy more generally -- has certainly polarized the political blogosphere. Obama's speech received near-universal acclaim from liberal bloggers and near-universal condemnation from conservative bloggers.

On the left, bloggers were impressed by Obama's political courage in tackling the difficult subject of race, and they described the speech as "brilliant," "riveting," and "politically risky." Yet while they loved the speech's content, many were uncertain as to what its ultimate political ramifications would be. On the right, bloggers accused Obama of offering "false moral equivalence," "blame whitey," and "the politics of grievance." Many are convinced that Obama's friendship with Wright will doom him in the general election, if not the Dem primary. And conservative bloggers are now more strongly opposed to Obama than ever before, as James Antle notes.

One thing is clear: those who predicted that an Obama-John McCain race would lead to a "civil" debate about this country's future (we're looking at you, Andrew Sullivan!) are deluding themselves. If the conservative reaction to the Wright controversy is any indication, an Obama-McCain race would be just as nasty as a Hillary Clinton-McCain race.

DEM FIELD: Denver, Are You Ready To Rumble?

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks a floor fight at the Dem convention is inevitable: "Barring a miraculous deal on Michigan that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns agree to, the failure to secure a revote in Michigan all but guarantees that the nomination campaign will head straight through to the convention. [...] The Clinton campaign will push for Michigan and Florida to be seated as is, and use the Michigan and Florida delegations to argue that Obama has not yet clinched the nomination. After June 3rd, they will take that argument to the credentials committee, which gains authority over the matter on June 11th. From that point, the credentials committee will probably deny the Clinton's campaign's argument to seat both delegations as is, since Obama will probably control the majority of seats on the committee. The next step will be for the Clinton faction on the committee to file a minority report on the delegations, which will then be referred to the full convention. The full floor vote on the Michigan and Florida delegations will then be a good proxy to determine who will win the nomination on the first ballot."

Bowers concludes: "And that is what the convention fight of 2008 will probably look like. Obama will still probably win, since he leads by 18 delegates even with both Michigan and Florida included, by a much larger amount without either delegation included, and since a significant majority of the undecided Michigan delegates will probably vote for him. However, this will probably make the task of defeating John McCain much more difficult. The party simply won't have as long of a time to unify after the nomination fight, and quite a few people are going to be extremely upset no matter who ends up winning."

Several liberal bloggers, fearful of a convention floor fight, are urging superdelegates to pick a nominee now:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It's up to those super delegates to decide whether we, as a party and as a nation, are better off letting this thing drag on into the convention, or whether they step up as leaders and ratify the inevitable outcome before more damage is done."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It's by now well established that, with a lead in delegates, popular vote, and number of states won, Barack Obama's path to nomination is a lot easier than Clinton's. But, with Clinton having decided to stay in the race despite Obama's difficult-to-surmount lead, it looks like the fight could continue over months. [...] Clinton may not be willing to admit that it's over, and the media may enjoy perpetuating the fight, but others shouldn't be so reticent. To prevent tearing the Democratic party apart and destroying a chance for a historic election, we need to be done with this."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Now, can we move on? It's time to wrap up this nomination battle so we can start running against McCain."

OBAMA: Wowing The Liberal Blogosphere

Liberal bloggers thought Obama's speech was honest, courageous, and powerful:

• Ezra Klein: "This speech was something I didn't expect: Honest. It was honest about Obama's affection for Wright, even as it repudiated Wright's comments. It was honest about the tragic history of race in America, even as it expressed faith in a redemptive future. It was...honest in admitting that there's anger in this country, and it's justified, and that there's fear in this country, and it's real. [...] Obama could have simply preached unity and forgiveness without recognizing the realities of anger and resentment. He could have done as Mitt Romney did, and sought to protect his political vulnerabilities by picking new enemies. [...] But he didn't. He's betting he can universalize this experience, too, and that he'll find more votes in unity than in division. It is, at best, a gamble. But at least it's an honest one."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I do not doubt at all that this was a politically risky speech. [...] The expectation from some might have been that Obama would have given a more bland speech, one that only dealt with the narrowest and most specific issue at hand at the moment: The comments of Jeremiah Wright. I submit, however, that Obama could not have succeeded in giving such a speech. Such a speech simply would not have been politically efficacious. It would have carried less risk, it might have offended some less, but it just would not have done what it needed to do -- get the campaign back on message. [...] Here, Obama took a leap of faith on a speech he personally penned. He put his heart on the line. And at least to me...he did connect. He hit the home run that [Chuck] Todd and [Mark] Murray talked about."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I found the speech riveting, provocative, insightful, thoughtful and courageous -- courageous because it eschewed almost completely all cliches, pandering and condescension, the first time I can recall a political figure of any significance doing so when addressing a controversial matter."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I found Obama's speech rather extraordinary. Indeed, it's the kind of speech politicians just don't give anymore -- a brilliant address with context and nuance. It answered key questions, while challenging his audience with new ones."
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "I've never heard this kind of candor from a politician, perhaps because there has never been a national political figure in the position to speak so eloquently on the state of race relations in our country. It was stark. It was honest. [...] This was the most important address on race since Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech."
• Open Left's Mimikatz: "Barack Obama's hearalded speech on race is the most honest appraisal of racial problems in America I can remember a politician ever giving. [...] His biggest gamble is to treat the subject with the depth and seriousness and complexity that it deserves. He is banking on enough reporters, pundits and voters hearing him out on this very difficult subject. If anyone can move our dialogue on race, our political discourse and our media coverage forward, he can. If we can't, as he says, we are condemned to repeat this mess over and over again."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Very impressive."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, who's been a harsh critic of Obama, did not like the speech: "What Obama wants to do is pivot it back to Clinton vs Obama, and get the Republican attack on him through Wright off the table, so he's equated Wright and [Geraldine] Ferraro multiple times in the speech. [...] This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low."

OBAMA II: Now, Getting Back To Politics...

Several liberal bloggers, while praising the content of Obama's speech, questioned its political effectiveness:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "[Obama's speech] is remarkable for its nuance, for its long view of history, and for its decency. I am not sure, on first take, how effective it is politically."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I hope Obama's speech worked politically today, for the sake of the Democratic Party. It was certainly a beautiful speech."
• Mother Jones' David Corn: "With this address, Obama presented a candid approach to race. Still, there's no telling if this will help him in his fierce battle with Hillary Clinton -- let alone in a general election, should he secure the Democratic presidential nomination."
• The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Obama's race speech [was] brilliant, beautiful, inspiring -- but perhaps not what crass electoral politics demanded of him."

Other bloggers think this speech could effectively wrap up the nomination for Obama:

• Ezra Klein: "To think through the political implications of the speech for a second, the real loser here looks to be Clinton. Now that Obama's candidacy is, in part, a referendum on the party's willingness to confront the issue of race and forge a cross-ethnic alliance in search of economic justice, it's hard to see how the supers can side with Clinton. Not because Obama is right in his quest, but because his candidacy is now too deeply intertwined with the history of the Democratic Party and the coalition that has evolved to support it. [...] A break with African-Americans would be devastating to the party, and an elite decision to choose Clinton over Obama looks ever more likely to create such a split."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'd say things are back on track. The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- if they could produce a result in Pennsylvania that looked like a Wright-induced collapse in Obama's white support, maybe they could convince superdelegates that he's unelectable. After this speech, I don't see it happening."

OBAMA III: Thinking Big

Obama's speech led a few liberal bloggers to discuss Obama's candidacy more generally:

• Ed Kilgore: "This speech ups the ante for Obama's promise to act as a reconciler and unifier. After this speech, no one should be under the impression that he's mainly interested in overcoming the narcissistic culture-based political conflicts of the 1990s. He's now casting his candidacy as an opportunity to transcend one of the biggest continuing traumas of the 19th and 20th centuries, and of centuries before that: race. There's never been much question that he was viewed that way by many supporters. But now it's explicitly on the table, and we'll soon find out how much reconciliation and unity Americans really want, and on what terms."
• Greenwald: "The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the [assumption] that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation -- the Drudgian Freak Show -- that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least. [...] But in Obama's faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press."
• dday: "I don't know or really care if it will work electorally; but it was vital that it is said on a big stage out loud. The 'bring us together instead of drive us apart' thematic of the Obama campaign has been viewed by some as a kind of high Broderism, as a false sense that through bipartisanship people with different ideologies and beliefs can work in harmony and peace. That misunderstands things a bit, in my view. Obama is talking about bringing together those Americans who already share the same beliefs but have had wedges driven between them. There's nothing particularly novel about this concept but we've been so rightly skeptical of messages of unity that I think it's gotten muddled."

OBAMA IV: Blame Whitey

Most conservative bloggers were extremely critical of Obama's speech:

• Michelle Malkin: "For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama's talk amounted to the same old, same old. [...] Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey."
• NRO's John Derbyshire: "It's just the old leftist shtick. [...] Blame whitey, and raise high the red flag of socialism. This is a serious candidate for the Presidency?"
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Honest question: What's the difference between Al Sharpton and Barack Obama? They have the same positions on the issues and they both embrace radical racists like Jeremiah Wright. So, the honest answer is that the only real difference is that Obama and Sharpton don't use the same rhetoric. Scratch away the pretty, flowing rhetoric that Barack uses and you'll find the same ugly, racist policies underneath."
• NRO's Charlotte Hays: "Obama is no longer a post-racial candidate. In his speech [today], he has embraced the politics of grievance."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The more I think about this speech, the more I think Obama said: Damn straight, Rev. Wright is angry. That's how I wound up at his church. That's why I stay there. I'm mad too, I just control it better. Now let's get electing me president so we can all feel good."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "It was a typical Obama speech -- soaring rhetoric, allusions to Martin Luther King, Jr., and probably a few fainters in the audience. It was a ballsy speech to be sure. But it was still bull. Obama wants to be both the black candidate and the candidate above race. He wants to embrace race and move beyond race. He tries to have his cake and eat it too. He wants us to do the same. I for one threw up."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "Obama's Philadelphia speech on race was an extremely deft pivot turning an issue about his honesty and judgment into an issue about America's racism. [...] Obama made a bad judgment when he chose to include Wright in his campaign. He made a bad judgment when he hoped the media wouldn't discover Wright's bigotry. When the issue came to light, Obama immediately began lying about what he knew about Wright's views and distorting his relationship with him. So of course Obama wants the Rev. Wright issue to be about race, because otherwise the issue is about Obama's dishonesty and lack of judgment."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Partisanship aside, as much as I loathe his politics, I always liked Obama the man and believed that his devotion to racial reconciliation was sincere. I don't anymore."

Righty bloggers were particularly critical of what they perceived as Obama's attempt to draw a false equivalency between his white grandmother and Wright:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Even amid the false equivalencies and obvious evasions of his speech today, Obama's misuse of his grandmother seems to me a striking sign of poor character."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "'The Throw Your Grandmother Under the Bus Speech.' That's what a friend of mine calls it. She only raised him -- to get compared to a raving anti-American pastor in his hour of political need."

OBAMA V: Hey, I Didn't Think It Was That Bad!

Surprisingly, a few conservative bloggers were impressed by Obama's speech:

• NRO's Charles Murray: "I read the various posts here on 'The Corner,' mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols...But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I've been as harsh on Obama's relation to Jeremiah Wright as anyone. But I'll be damned if I didn't literally tear up during the speech he just gave (and which, incidentally, he wrote himself). His expression of patriotic love for the only country in the world where his story is possible, his praise of how far we've come on the issue of race, his faith that we can and will come further -- it was pitch-perfect. Yes, the association with Wright still bothers me, and in a perfect world it would be disqualifying. But I think he just put it behind him, and maybe even turned it into a news cycle victory."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If that speech doesn't help Obama, I don't know what will. Intelligently written, movingly delivered. [...] The genius of Barack Obama is that he is able to take the concerns of people who disagree with him, summarize those concerns fairly and eloquently, accept and affirm the goodness of their motives -- and then politely restate his original liberal position. That genius was on display today."

Unsurprisingly, Andrew Sullivan loved the speech: "This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history. [...] I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy -- not this man, his candidacy -- and what he can bring us to achieve -- is an historic opportunity."

OBAMA VI: You Can't Talk Your Way Out Of This One

For many conservative bloggers, the speech itself is irrelevant; Obama's 20-year association with Wright is damning by itself:

• Glenn Reynolds: "It seems to have been a good speech. The question is, how much does that help a guy who's known for giving good speeches, when the real question is whether he means what he says?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Although Obama's speech is not without its evasions, I consider it a courageous one by usual political standards. He has refused to walk away from Wright's black liberation theology when it might well have been expedient to do so. The rest of us now should have the courage to take Obama at his word and decide whether it is acceptable to elect as president of the United States someone who carries Rev. Wright around as part of him, and who takes his ranting seriously."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[There is] no 'Wright' explanation. [...] The issue is a simple one. Barack Obama attended Jeremiah Wright's church for more than twenty years, was baptized by him, married by him and had his children baptized by him. For a long time, a person who damns America was an important part of the Obamas' lives, and was not repudiated until it became politically necessary. When all Barack's oratory about the matter has been set aside, that's either acceptable to a voter or it isn't."
• NRO's Amy Holmes: "Where does this leave Obama? Not much better off than where he was 24 hours ago. Pastor Wright has singlehandedly turned Obama into the race candidate. For every person who listened to Obama's speech today are a hundred uncommitted voters who haven't yet seen the video clips and who will be shocked and appalled when they do."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I think the truth, buried in all this rhetoric and gloss, is clear: Obama sat there in church for twenty years, listening with his kids to a preacher vilifying his country, white people in general, and the state of Israel, and lacked the moral gumption to leave. I think the halo has slipped."

MCCAIN: You Say Sunni, I Say Shi'a

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for repeatedly "misidentif[ying] some of the main players in the Iraq war" during his trip to Jordan. The Washington Post's Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear report:

"Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran. He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq."

• Daily Kos' smintheus: "This isn't just a minor slip. This betrays a profound lack of foreign policy expertise, a shallowness so extreme that if the remark had been made by Barack Obama, say, it would have called into question his viability as a presidential candidate."
• Singer: "Given that John McCain apparently does not understand one of the most fundamental issues pertaining to the Iraq War and the broader situation in the Middle East today -- that Iran is a Shi'a power fighting for Shi'a interests and is in no way allied with the Sunni Al Qaeda, which is fighting for very different interests (particularly in Iraq, where the two groups tend to find themselves on opposite ends of the conflict) -- is he really prepared to be Commander-in-Chief?"
• Yglesias: "This isn't just an issue of McCain blowing some trivia answer, it seems to call into question whether he's really been paying attention to the Iraq issue over the past couple of years. He's very sure that the surge is working, but doesn't understand the basic contours of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq? Seems strange."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "How will the media explain this? Was the old warrior just momentarily confused? Does that happen often? Or Did John McCain just illustrate he is as dangerously misinformed as the President? Neither man can sort out Sunnies from Shia, al Qaeda from the Iranians, and who hates whom, but both men are certain the lives and treasure they've sacrificed in fighting -- who? -- were worth it."
• Meanwhile, Mark Kleiman thinks HRC should retract her previous statements about McCain's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief: "Given McCain's buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn't this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say, 'Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn't sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are.'"
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum likes Kleiman's suggestion: "It's a twofer! Count me in."

Liberal bloggers are also discussing the news (reported by Think Progress' Ali Frick) that McCain made the same false assertion about al-Queda and Iran before, while appearing on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show."
• Joe Sudbay: "Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. That's a pretty big mistake for someone who is supposed to be so steeped in foreign policy and Iraq."

MCCAIN II: He Was Right The First Time!

Conservative bloggers are denying that McCain made a gaffe:

• The Weekly Standard's Thomas Joscelyn: "McCain was right the first time. He shouldn't have taken his statement back. And it's the bloggers who are ignorant -- not John McCain."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Here is the truth: al Qaeda has been receiving funding, training, and equipment from Iran during the last year-plus of the Iraq War, and denial of that fact belies a willful ignorance -- and a desire to remain ignorant -- of the truth, at very least."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As far as I know, Iran hasn't recently been training al Qaeda terrorists, but if that's true, it is only because they haven't needed it, not because of some supposed inability of Sunni and Shia terrorists to cooperate in attacking the United States and its interests. The reporters who solemnly assure their readers that Shia/Sunni collaboration is impossible, notwithstanding that it is a documented fact, are the direct descendants of those who thought that fascists and communists were irreconcilable foes, only to be stunned by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, one group of thugs is very much like another, and thugs have never hesitated to find allies where they can, when it suits their interests."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We've Never Thought About It That Way...

Dilbert Blog's Scott Adams:

"Why [do] so-called natural meat eaters feel the need to disguise their food by cutting it into steaks, cooking it, and covering it with barbecue sauce? If eating meat is natural, you would expect it to make you hungry in its natural condition. Looking at a cow should make you salivate when you are hungry.

Am I wrong?"

LEST WE FORGET: Why White People Like Dinner Parties

Stuff White People Like explains the significance of dinner parties:

"The dinner party is the opportunity for white people to be judged on their taste in food, wine, furniture, art, interior design, music, and books. Outside of dictatorships and a few murder trials, there might not be a more rigorous judgment process in the modern world. Everything must be perfect. One copy of US Weekly, a McDonalds wrapper, a book by John Grisham, a Third Eye Blind CD, or an Old School DVD can undo months and maybe even years of work. [...]"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

March 18, 2008

3/18: Drawing A Line In The Sand

Last week we observed that the increasingly contentious Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle was dividing the liberal blogosphere into pro-Obama and pro-Clinton blogs. This trend appears to be continuing, with a group of pro-Clinton bloggers launching a boycott of the popular liberal blog Daily Kos (which is currently dominated by Obama supporters). Pro-Clinton diarist Alegre announced that she would stop posting on Daily Kos in order to protest "the abuse and anger" directed at her by Obama supporters, and she urged other Clinton supporters to do the same. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas initially dismissed the boycott, saying "It's a big Internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for."

Yesterday, Moulitsas responded more fully to the boycott, writing a lengthy post entitled "The Clinton civil war" in which he explained his opposition to Clinton. We think Moulitsas' post is noteworthy for several reasons. It details the various ways in which Moulitsas sees Clinton as failing to live up to his "guiding principles." But, he also says that his primary reason for opposing Clinton is that "the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate," which would "sunder the party in civil war."

This represents a notable shift in tone for Moulitsas. Just two weeks ago, he praised Clinton after her OH and TX victories and declared, "I'm cool with her continuing on. I certainly won't be calling for her to quit." But now it appears that Moulitsas sees Clinton's decision to continue fighting until the convention as dangerous to the party's prospects in November.

DEM FIELD: Civil War?

Pro-Clinton diarist Alegre explains her proposed "writers strike": "I've been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I've noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters. [...] I've decided to go on 'strike' and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution. [...] I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate -- a good and fine DEMOCRAT -- is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page."

When ABC's Jake Tapper asked him about the strike, Moulitsas replied: "First, these people should read up on the definition of 'strike.' What they're doing is a 'boycott.' But whatever they call it, I think it's great. It's a big Internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for."

• Later, Moulitsas writes a lengthy post explaining his (and his blog's) opposition to HRC: "Clinton fails the test of [most of] the guiding principles of this site, and of my first book, Crashing the Gate. Clinton isn't just a member of the DLC, she's in their leadership. Obama, by the way, repudiated the organization three times (it's a great story, which I tell in my forthcoming book). Clinton hasn't just rejected a 50-state strategy, she has openly attacked it. [...] Clinton didn't just vote for the Iraq war and refuse to apologize for it, she voted to give Bush the same authority on Iran. And if we want to talk about which [candidate] is the most grassroots-oriented, it's no contest. We've seen it in the caucuses, we've seen it in the netroots, and we saw it in the Iowa county convention this Saturday. The party's activists are busting their butts for Obama, while Clinton's campaign is counting on low-information Democratic voters selecting Clinton based on little more than name ID."
• Moulitsas continues: "But I could deal with all of that, really, if Clinton was headed toward victory. [...] But she's not, and that's the rub...The only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate. [...] Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war. Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power. If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on [Howard] Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case. It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve 'fairness' on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately."
• Moulitsas concludes by drawing a line in the sand: "People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like [Keith] Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice. And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay agrees with Moulitsas: "The traditional media is playing up the Obama-Clinton battle. And, the Clinton campaign is playing along with them. Reporters and pundits know the reality -- Hillary can't win -- but it's good for ratings to keep this battle going. [...] Hillary won't win the nomination without some machination -- Markos calls it a coup, and he's right -- that will result in a Democratic Party civil war. And, that seems fine by her."

The Field's Al Giordano also criticizes the Daily Kos boycott: "[Daily Kos] has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party to be more grassroots oriented, adhere to a 50-state strategy, stop the war in Iraq, and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). [...] Given that candidate Clinton is a member of the DLC, voted to authorize the war, accepts federal lobbyist and PAC money, clearly thinks that a lot (if not most) states 'don't matter,' and epitomizes a 1990s style top-down form of doing politics, it's no surprise that for all of 2007 Clinton never exceeded 11 percent support in the monthly Daily Kos users straw poll."

DEM FIELD II: The State Of Flor-igan

Liberal bloggers are discussing the news that FL will not hold a revote:

• TPM's Greg Sargent thinks this is a blow to HRC's chances: "It's all but certain that whatever solution does eventually emerge won't seat the delegation in its current breakdown. So this is rough news for Hillary."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, who supports HRC, wants FL's delegates seated based on the 1/29 results: "More than 1.7 million [FL] Democrats already voted and they chose Hillary. They want their vote to count. And it should. The DNC is the culprit here. They need to retract the penalty and award and seat the delegates in accordance with the January 29 vote."
• Daily Kos' Devilstower blames the FL GOP for creating this situation: "[Gov.] Charlie Crist and the Florida legislators who voted to move Florida's primary ahead of schedule took a long shot gamble, putting their constituents' votes on the line when both political parties had already warned of the consequences. But Crist and Co. thought they'd get more media cash and influence by being at the front of the pack, when the irony is that they would have had much more effect if the vote in Florida had come later. Oh yeah, and the votes would count. But they rolled the dice and lost, costing their voters a say in the nominating process. Now Crist and the rest will be pointing their fingers at the DNC, claiming it's the mean old rules that are at fault."

Meanwhile, several bloggers are criticizing Obama for not agreeing to a revote in MI:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Today, we discover that Obama is blocking the MI revote plan and Clinton has embraced revotes in FL and MI. [...] Pols are pols, and if their situations were reversed, I feel confident their positions would be reversed on revotes for Michigan and Florida. But there is no doubt that revotes favor the Democratic Party and its chances in November. And that is what I care about. Not to mention the principle of enfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan. Not a small thing either."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama would benefit from a revote in MI: "I really don't understand why the Obama campaign is dragging its feet on the Michigan revote deal. [...] Just about the only way Obama can lose the nomination at this point is if there is no revote in Michigan. Even with Florida included, at this point Obama leads by 99 delegates with less than 1,000 delegates remaining, thereby requiring Clinton to win the remaining delegates by about 10%. Basically, once a revote in Michigan is announced, Obama becomes the clear and overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. However, without a Michigan revote, we are guaranteed to head to a brokered convention, since no one will be able to reach 2,208 without Michigan."

OBAMA: Cuz Everyone Loves A Scandal

In the hours leading up to Obama's major speech about "the larger issue of race in this campaign", liberal bloggers continued to discuss the Jeremiah Wright flap. Many bloggers are accusing the media of stoking the controversy:

• Ezra Klein: "Does anyone believe that Barack Obama shares Jeremiah Wright's political views? Do folks think Obama believes AIDS a biological weapon made by the American government to harm Africans? That Obama is a great fan of [Louis] Farrakhan? [...] So far as I can tell, no one really thinks Obama agrees with Wright. They just know that Wright's comments are going to be politically troublesome for Obama. And so they're covering them as if they're a huge problem for Obama. But there's a disconnect there. Such views are supposed to be troublesome because they signal that Obama agrees with them. But if no one believes that Obama agrees with them, then they're just the views of some dude who knows Obama, and talks to him about spirituality. The controversy rests on everyone's ability to treat it as something no one seems to believe it is."
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "[Obama]'s made the fatal mistake of assuming that his 'words' and his 'explanations' and the 'character' he's demonstrated through a lifetime of 'actions' is sufficient in assuaging the concerns of voters. But he forgot about the need to satisfy the media. And clearly his previous denunciations of Reverend Wright's remarks have not been sufficient. And if you can't satisfy the media, can you really satisfy the voters, who the media will say aren't satisfied? Probably not."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "If you wondered how the nation's mainstream media would ensure that racism and religious militarism influence the next election, just watch MSNBC and ABC stage endless faintings about 'Obama's pastor problem.' [...] It does not seem to have occurred to the white DC pundit class that blacks have every right to be angry at America -- and that condemning them for this anger is racist."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum has questions about the controversy: "What's struck me the oddest about the whole thing has been the timing. Why now? Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ have been on the radar screen for months, discussed on blogs, listservs, talk radio, and Fox News. So why did it suddenly become a national media storm now? It probably isn't the result of campaign oppo stuff, since that would have been a lot more effective and helpful a couple of months ago. And the sermons themselves date back years, so it's not as if the material just recently became available. So what triggered it? [...] And why didn't Obama have a more vigorous defense ready when it did hit? It's not as if he didn't know Wright was an issue just waiting to explode in his face."

OBAMA II: Wright Or Wrong?

Some liberal bloggers disagree about whether or not Wright's comments are offensive:

Bowers does not find Wright offensive: "I am not offended by Jeremiah Wright. In fact, Wright is actually one of the reasons I have always liked Obama. And no, that is not because I am religious (I'm not) or that I actually liked the comments that have caused a controversy about Wright (I don't). Instead, Obama's upbringing, including the church he attends, provides him with a perspective on a large segment of America that is rarely represented either in popular American culture or in the executive branches of state and federal governments. [...] Personally, I think it would be a big step forward to finally have a President who does understand those parts of the country, which might in turn lead to the future generations in those neighborhoods being a lot less angry at America."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, finds Wright's comments "toxic" and thinks Obama needs to throw the pastor under the bus: "I don't think the way that [Obama]'s pitched the speech he's going to give [today], as talking about 'the larger issue of race in this campaign' will suffice to put away the issue of Wright. [...] The dismissal and repudiation of Wright must be addressed, and in a way so complete that there is no doubt that 20 years of a close relationship does not mean a thing. If Obama wants to keep Wright as part of his life, and try and convince that it's a net positive, he's going to pay a deep price. [...] The only way out of this is for Obama to have completely disavowed and distanced himself from Wright -- a long time ago. Now, he's stuck with it as part of his negative brand. The core of his message, of leading us to a post-racial America and his having good judgment skills, is all thrashed."

Armstrong concludes that Obama's presidential prospects are dropping fast: "The partisan knives among the Republicans are out and won't go away. [...] [Obama's] negatives are already nearing the same level as Clinton. Obama has never had to face a general election test. He has subscribed to a post-partisan worldview in a world that is through and through caught in an extremely partisan time. Those whom believe in him the most don't see it yet, but there's a lot crashing down around Obama right now."

OBAMA III: No Way Out

Conservative bloggers also discussed the Wright controversy:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[Obama's] speech is an inherent acknowledgment that the initial response -- essentially arguing that Obama never heard Wright say any of the truly jaw-dropping comments -- is no longer operable. In this speech, he's going to have to answer, how do the teachings of a divisive figure like Jeremiah Wright generate a man who claims to want unity like Barack Obama? Is Obama's warm, inclusive, optimistic rhetoric a false face to hide...what? Anger? Resentment? Paranoia?"

Michelle Malkin: "We know how his wife and his pastor feel about America. It's finally dawned on Barack Obama that they have been undermining his glow of HopeNChange."

RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Barack HopeChangeHopeEmptyWordsAndNowLies Obama's current situation is one of his own making. In trying to be all things to all (leftist) people, he has painted himself into a corner like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. In an attempt to escape the stigma of his rumored-to-be-Muslim childhood, and his distasteful middle name, and in an attempt to promote his Authentic Blackness to the community whose support he needed to get elected to office in Chicago, Obama played up his membership in Jeremiah Wright's church as much as he possibly could. [...] Now, that lie is coming back to bite the wannabe Messiah in the backside. It's too bad, really; if BarackObama had decided to attend a real Christian church, instead of a racist, bigoted, politics-and-profanity-from-the-pulpit sewer of a 'church,' he might have learned the most valuable lesson of all: man's fallibility."

Meanwhile, Slate's Mickey Kaus offers Obama some advice: "In his Big Race Speech today, I hope Obama remembers the lesson of his breakthrough 2004 convention keynote address, which is a) say something conservative and anti-PC sounding; b) say it strongly and c) say it early. After that, you'll have the doubters on your side and you can more or less be as doctrinaire-left as you want. [...] There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births. Three strike laws! But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright's most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races."

OBAMA IV: Is He Toast?

Several conservative bloggers continue to argue that Obama's candidacy is doomed:

• NRO's John Derbyshire: "I repeat: Obama's toast. He may yet get the Democratic nomination, but tens of millions of Americans who are neither (a) black nor (b) guilty white liberals are simply appalled that Obama would revere a guy like Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, whatever the particularities of which services he did and didn't attend. It defies belief that Obama knew this man for all that time, intimately enough to have him supervise at the Obama wedding and the children's baptisms, yet did not know that Wright is a white-hating, America-hating crank. [...] I don't even think [Al] Gore can pick Obama as a running mate now."
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "[Derbyshire's] right: Obama is toast. There is no coming back from this either. If he repudiates his affiliation to Wright's church he is sure to suffer with his African-American base, who will see him as too willing to listen to white critics. If he defends it, whites who felt comfortable with him, in part because he wasn't throwing anger and guilt at them, will leave. [...] Of course Hillary is the obvious beneficiary of his fall, and she may yet pull out the nomination. No matter. The numbers of voters who have sworn to pollsters that they would not vote for her no matter what, has hovered slightly above 50 percent forever. And, there will be a lot of angry Obama voters who won't show up for her. So, with full knowlege that anything could change and this could look like a ridiculous prediction, right this minute it's [John] McCain's to lose."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "Some of the pronouncements in these parts as to the toastedness of Barack may prove a wee bit premature. [...] But, as things stand, Obama is damaged. [...] Jeremiah Wright is not most Americans' idea of a pastor, and the longer he's in the spotlight the more he distances Obama from the electorate. Accepting (as everyone assures us) that the candidate himself is not an Afrocentric liberation theologist who believes every crackpot conspiracy of the last 70 years, every other explanation as to why Barack Obama spent two decades in the company of a profane race-baiter leaves the Senator looking either weak or weird. If he can wriggle out of this tonight, he's some kind of genius."

OBAMA V: Kristolized

Liberal bloggers are hammering New York Times columnist Bill Kristol for falsely asserting in his 3/17 op-ed that Obama attended a sermon in which Rev. Jeremiah Wright made controversial statements about the "United States of White America." In fact, Obama was travelling to Miami on the day that Wright gave this sermon.

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'm shocked. Who would have imagined that a substantial factual error would work its way into Bill Kristol's latest Obama-bashing column? It's almost as if Kristol's a hatchet-man rather than a real journalist."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I'm curious, since when do New York Times writers rely on Newsmax as a reliable source? How is it that NYT editors thought an inaccurate hit-job on a ridiculous website should serve as the basis for falsely accusing a presidential candidate of 'deceit'?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[Kristol] leveled a serious charge against Obama without checking the evidence. Doesn't the Times now fire reporters who make stuff up?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Cripes, Bill, unlike the garbage you peddled while cheerleading for the Iraq war, this lie turned around and bit you in the ass immediately. And for future reference, the only source worse than Newsmax is the Weekly Standard. You should keep that in mind while penning your screeds."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Political Bracketology

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees similarities between the NCAA tournament and the presidential nomination process:

"If your team is set to play the winner of, say, a 7 vs. 10 game, you ordinarily start out rooting for the number 10 team to pull an upset. But if the 10 team builds a double-digit lead, you often find yourself fearing that squad and pulling for the higher seeded team. But if the number 7 teams comes back, you regret not getting to play the lower seed after all.

Many Republicans have viewed the Democratic race in a similar way. When Obama seemed to be running the table on Clinton, some Republicans began rooting for Hillary to come back on the theory that Obama would be too tough to beat. Now that Obama is in trouble, many Republicans are starting to think he's the one we'd like McCain to run against.

In politics, as in sports tournaments, you don't get to play the loser. But maybe the Republicans will get the next best thing. Suppose Obama continues to lose his appeal to the point that he becomes an easier opponent than Clinton (not probable, but certainly possible). But suppose (as seems almost certain) he nonetheless has won more delegates than Clinton in primaries and caucuses, and the Democrats are simply too afraid to deny him the nomination under these circumstances (quite possible). For McCain that would be like playing a bracket winner that's lost its star player."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Can Tell Commercial Will Be For Corona

From The Onion:

"BISBEE, AZ -- Local man James Fitzner, 42, was able to successfully predict within seven seconds that a recent 30-second TV commercial was advertising Corona, despite having never seen the ad in his life. 'I knew right away because it was really silent and the camera started zooming out a little bit and they never show the beach at first -- they try to trick you,' said the media-savvy Fitzner, who in the past has been able to identify ads for MasterCard and Red Bull before the product was mentioned. 'Then, as soon as I heard the sound of waves in the background, I just said to myself, "Corona."' Fitzner's son David, 16, said that after the beer bottle appeared on screen, his father turned to him and winked."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

March 17, 2008

3/17: Debating Wright And Wrong

The big topic in the blogosphere is Barack Obama's relationship with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who was recently found to have made controversial statements while delivering sermons at his Chicago church. Obama sought to defuse the controversy by posting a diary on The Huffington Post in which he denounced Wright's statements and explained his relationship with Wright. Predictably, Obama's post drew praise from liberal bloggers and criticism from conservative bloggers.

Liberal bloggers are reacting to the Wright controversy in different ways: some are criticizing Wright while praising Obama's response; others are defending Wright; and still others are accusing the media of holding Obama to a different standard than GOP pols.

Conservative bloggers are less divided in their reaction to Wright's comments. Some are arguing that Obama's relationship with Wright betrays his lack of patriotism and radical views, while others are claiming that it simply shows that Obama is a typical politician. Neither conclusion is a flattering one for the IL senator. But will the public agree?

OBAMA: How To Respond?

Liberal bloggers reacted to the Wright controversy in different ways. Some bloggers focused on the likely impact of the controversy:

• Ezra Klein: "This will be another way that Clinton, or [John] McCain, or whoever, cement their nagging sense that Obama belongs to 'the Other,' and isn't one of them -- is too Muslim, or too foreign, or too post-patriotic, or simply too black. [...] These are the tensions [Obama's] campaign has to navigate: It's not easy to remake race into a unifying force, nor a ideological internationalism into an American value. Traditionally, internationalism has been used to question patriotism, and race has been used to divide. In his speeches, Obama likes to say that 'I know change isn't easy.' And he's right, it's not. This won't be an easy election. And whether the force of his message will overcome the pull of our history is, for now, an open question."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Wright will be used to remind voters that Obama is black and hates America like the Muslims who share his middle name, while [Tony] Rezko will be used to paint Obama as a typical politician. (The [GOP's] other line of attack will be the 'experience' stuff). Obama's handling of this stuff serves several key purposes -- it's warmup for the general election, it allows him to deal with this stuff early enough in the process that it'll be long forgotten to all but the hardest core partisans in just a few short months, and also proves to the super delegates that he's got the chops to deal with these sorts of attacks -- not just the bullshit swiftboat ones, but the ones that have some merit as well."

Other bloggers complained about double standards:

• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "We have now seen more sermons from Barack Obama's minister in 48 hours than we ever did of Mike Huckabee -- and Mike Huckabee was a presidential candidate for 14 long months. Why is it acceptable to scour every last sermon given by Wright, but only weeks ago we weren't allowed to see or read Mike Huckabee's sermons? [...] After all, Mike Huckabee was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister who's entire campaign was based on the fact that he was the Christian candidate. Are we to believe that he didn't rail against the US government over abortion in previous sermons? Or homosexuality?"
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "I agree that Obama needs to go a few extra steps to distance himself. He did, after all, name a book after one of Wright's sermons. But the idea that Obama is some sort of stealth black nationalist is laughingly absurd. It's also absurd that Obama is getting exponentially more heat for Wright than Bush got for certifiable lunatics like James Dobson. The distinction is pretty clear -- Obama attended Wright's church and doesn't consult him for squat. Dobson apparently got a biweekly courtesy call from Karl Rove and presumably had influence on policy."

Other bloggers defended Wright:

• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "Is the vision of a pastor standing in his pulpit shouting 'God damn America' shocking? Yes. But don't mistake Wright's [statement] for what some drunk in a bar would mean using the same phrasing. Wright isn't saying 'FU America!' he's saying 'these actions of America are worthy of God's condemnation.' He's just saying it in a way that cuts through the Sunday morning sleepiness and makes people sit up in their pew. [...] I understand why Senator Obama finds it necessary to distance himself from Rev. Wright. There were plenty of things in those sermons that I don't agree with, and I'm suspect many of the ideas that grate on my nerves also strike the Senator as either wrong or unsustainable politically. These days, three isolated words on the news seem far more important than context or intent. But I wish [Obama] didn't have to do so."
• Jack and Jill Politics' rikyrah: "Questioning Black folks' patriotism is one of oldest slanders in the book, and it's not something that I tolerate. Unlike many of his critics, Jeremiah Wright actually put his life on the line in service to this country as a member of its Armed Services -- the Marines. YA THINK that seeing war, and the effects of what couldn't be considered as anything BUT an unjust war, might color his view as a minister? Ya think? Ya think, spending his life working with those that this country scorns and discards -- poor Black folk -- might color his views as a mininster? Ya think?"

OBAMA II: The Wright Response?

Obama sought to defuse the Wright controversy by posting a diary on The Huffington Post: "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. [...] With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States."

Many liberal bloggers were impressed by Obama's response:

• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Obama [has released] a great, clear, and convincing statement explaining his relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright."
• The Huffington Post's Joseph A. Palermo: "Obama showed good judgment by distancing his campaign from the more radical views of Reverend Wright and relieving him of any formal connection to his organization, but Obama also showed an admirable character trait by refusing to denounce Rev. Wright the person."
• Mark Kleiman: "I think Obama has made it clear that Wright is his past, not his future. The 'black power' stuff is precisely what Obama has chosen to reject. Wright has now been bounced from the campaign's clergy group. So I don't think there's a legitimate political issue left there."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Senator Obama has posted an eloquent explanation of his relationship with Reverend Wright at Huffington Post. A silver lining of the controversy, of course, is that when the story is pushed, the effect is to remind people that Obama is a Christian; the smear merchants can't have it both ways -- he can't be a Christian and a Muslim."

OBAMA III: No Sympathy For The Devil

Obama's critics in the liberal blogosphere had little sympathy for the IL senator's plight:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I just can't imagine the worldview that looks toward a person like Wright as someone that I'd attend Church to listen too, someone that I'd choose to get married by, someone I'd watch baptize my two children. I realize these are selective comments in the video, but come on, we all know that there's a lot more. [...] In the end, if you are already among The Ones, this, like all things that are anti-Obama, doesn't stick. I have a hard time seeing though, by the end of this, how Wright isn't as toxic as [Louis] Farrakhan."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "While I don't believe Obama subscribes to Wright's views and I believe his heart is in the right place and he wants what's best for the country, I think we've just seen another case of his poor judgment and his tendency to put blinders on when when it comes to his loyalty to his friends and his choice of associates. If Obama is elected President, we'll be relying on his judgment in choosing high level advisors and policy makers. His track record with Rezko and Wright, particularly his insistence he saw no red flags, gives me pause. Obama seems less about hope and change and more about inexperience and naivite."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There's been a good amount of pontificating about whether Wright said the right thing or the wrong thing, but the real organizing and journalism in the progressive blogosphere has been focused on fighting Bush and the telecom industry on wiretapping. If Obama had led on this or any other fight, we could easily make the argument that the Wright discussion is a distraction from his leadership qualities and badgered various elites for their lack of focus on substance. But now there really is no argument. [...Obama]'s decided he's a post-partisan politician, and when a politician makes that choice, it's not just a disincentive for partisans to fight for that person. It becomes structurally impossible to fight for him because the incentives get all out of whack."

OBAMA IV: Plumbing His Soul

Many conservative bloggers think Obama's relationship with Wright is evidence that Obama lacks patriotism and/or subscribes to black liberation theology:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Wright's 'God d*mn America' comments play right into the 'Obama isn't patriotic' meme. Obama makes a big deal over not wearing a flag pin, he doesn't hold his hand over his heart for the national anthem, his wife says she is really proud of her country for the first time, and now this provides just one more piece of evidence that, yes, Obama really doesn't love this country and thus, is unfit to be President."
• Michelle Malkin: "Obama's minimization strategy -- implying that Wright's diatribes were cherry-picked rarities out of hundreds and hundreds of sermons -- also failed miserably. 'Black liberation theology' (with all its attendant anti-American pathologies) is Jeremiah Wright's bread and butter. Wright knows it. His congregation knows it. Obama knows it. And now, for whatever reason this story finally broke into the MSM after buzzing on blogs and talk radio for nearly a year, the rest of America knows it, too."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "If we take Obama at his word, his relationship with Wright was not pure opportunism. Rather there was an affinity. What was the nature of that affinity? [...] Wright brought [Obama] to Jesus. More precisely, Wright's brand of Christianity accomplished this. What is that brand? According to Wright (for example, during his contentious interview with Sean Hannity last year), the brand is liberation theology. Liberation theology sees the Christian mission as bringing justice to oppressed people through political activism. In effect, it is a merger of Christianity with radical left-wing ideology. [...] It's easy to see why this brand of Christianity, and probably only this brand, could bring a left-wing political activist like Obama to Jesus."

OBAMA V: Call Me A Cynic, But...

Other conservative bloggers think Obama formed a relationship with Wright for political reasons, not because he agreed with Wright's more controversial views:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Obama used his connections to Jeremiah [Wright] and his church to solidify himself in the black community. [...] Unfortunately for Obama, his ties to his church are no longer convenient. He has tried to disown the rhetoric of his church without disowning his pastor. [...] It defies credibility for Obama to claim no knowledge of his own preacher's statements from his own church's pulpit over a span of twenty years. Either Obama goes to church for show and has no relations within the church, in which case he is a fraud, or he does have relations in the church and does pay attention, in which case he's just a liar. Either way, the change he's offering no longer looks like it amounts to much."
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "That a fatherless young man would feel both close and grateful to a charismatic minister who behaved sympathetically to him, and encouraged his ambitions, seems natural. For a politician, having a constituency that regards itself as particularly victimized -- as Wright tells his congregants they have been -- in a way he is uniquely able to fix, is a boon."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "[I'm not saying] Wright isn't a legitimate campaign issue -- he certainly is, especially as a reflection on Obama's judgment. But I can easily think of reasons Obama got wrapped up with Wright, and even became close to him personally, other than agreeing with the pastor's more noxious views."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama finds himself in a unique position, and at a crossroads. To his credit, he has run as a real, mainstream candidate, not a 'niche' candidate like Al Sharpton, a borderline criminal whose history, to put it politely, does not bear inspection. Yet Obama drags along behind him the detritus of a swamp of irrationality that, quite deliberately, has never been drained."

OBAMA VI: The Wright-ing's On The Wall

Several conservative bloggers think the Wright controversy will doom Obama's candidacy:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "What are the odds that the [Hillary] Clinton team can find a video with Obama in the background, with Wright saying something controversial? And what are the odds that if that video exists, it gets dropped on the press in the closing days before Pennsylvania? [...] If Hillary can't beat Obama with this kind of material to work with, she would never beat John McCain."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The raw venom expressed by Wright, and Obama's ambiguity about him, may well be the most bizarre development in recent American political history. It is as if he and his entire campaign staff have collectively lost their minds with these serial contortions and half-truths, and are trying to lose Pennsylvania by 30 points -- when all Obama would have to do is apologize, quit the church, and begin talking about the issues. [...] Any middle-of-the-road Democratic voter who sampled five or six of Wright's sermons, juxtaposed them with Obama's references to him as not particularly controversial, an uncle, a scholar, etc., wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Well, where does this leave the Democrats now? Had this happened in January the party would have different and better options. But here we are in March with a 100 plus delegate lead for Obama...[One] possible [scenario]: Obama hangs on to his lead, but a revived Hillary Clinton (now emboldened that the Democratic establishment will abandon Obama) takes her fight to the bitter end. Obama eventually wins the nomination after a bloody fight. The 527’s run hundreds of ads in the general election with Obama’s picture and the text of Wright’s sermons. Also possible: Obama’s poll numbers begin to tank, Clinton wins all the remaining primaries except North Carolina, the superdelegates throw in their lot with her and a lot of really angry Obama supporters make a very big stink about racial politics."
• NRO's John Derbyshire: "Obama's toast."

OBAMA VII: Barack In The Lion's Den

In non-Wright news, Obama sat down with the Chicago Tribune editorial board on 3/14 and spent 92 minutes answering "every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him" about his relationship with Tony Rezko. Afterwards, the Tribune praised Obama's candor and concluded that "nothing Obama said...diminishes" the newspaper's earlier endorsement of the IL senator.

Many liberal bloggers were pleased by the Tribune's verdict:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It appears that the Tribune, which has spilled a lot of ink on the Rezko-Obama connection, came away from the discussion satisfied. [...] As for the campaign, I hope Obama has learned a bit about waiting to offer detailed explanations. Next time, do it sooner."
• Moulitsas: "The Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president in its history. Its editorial board had every partisan reason to try and further damage Obama on the issue. Instead, it has essentially exonerated him. [...] Like Whitewater, this is a nothing story, a minor 'scandal' that political enemies are trying desperately to spin into something bigger. You'd think the Clinton campaign and its supporters would be a little more careful about this sort of thing, especially after [Norman] Hsu, but they've got little else to work with. So there's this and Wright, and that's pretty much all that's apparently left in Clinton's quiver."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Rezko chapter is closed absent some new revelation. [...] Let's do what the Chicago Tribune suggests and judge the other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries by the 'standard for candor' set by Obama. Hillary, you're up. After all, the Clinton campaign sure likes to raise issue about disclosures from other campaigns. Now, it's her turn. Can Hillary Clinton meet Obama's standard for candor?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Questions For McCain

The New Republic's Josh Patashnik:

"The media needs to stop giving John McCain a free pass. It's time someone started asking him the hard questions: What does he think of the NCAA tournament selection committee's decision to give Arizona an at-large bid in the tournament, while snubbing rival Arizona State, which beat the Wildcats twice and throttled third-seeded Xavier to boot? (I thought they both should have gotten in, but admittedly I'm a Pac-10 chauvinist.)

Whatever McCain thinks of the decision, he's still getting in on the March Madness action. He just sent out an email to supporters advertising his campaign's 2008 bracket pool, in which you can compare your picks to McCain's. (You can probably bet on an all-swing-state Final Four of Wisconsin, Xavier, Pitt, and Arkansas.) [...]"

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Converts to Judaism

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz reports:

"Buffeted by criticism of his controversial Christian pastor while continuing to quell rumors that he is a Muslim, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) took a bold step today to settle questions about his religious faith once and for all.

'I am converting to Judaism, effective immediately,' Mr. Obama told reporters at a press conference in Scarsdale, New York, adding that he would change his middle name from 'Hussein' to 'Murray.'[...]

In a subtle sign of the shift in his religious affiliation, Mr. Obama's signature catchphrase 'Yes, we can,' was nowhere to be found in his speech, replaced instead by 'L'Chaim.'

While some political observers praised Mr. Obama's conversion to Judaism as a shrewd tactic to put the issue of his religious identity to rest, the move raised the ire of one of his harshest critics, former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro.

'Barack Murray Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in if he wasn't Jewish,' said Ms. Ferraro to herself."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

March 14, 2008

3/14: Mutually Assured Destruction?

The Geraldine Ferraro controversy may be dying down, but liberal bloggers are keeping up a steady drumbeat of criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Several bloggers are arguing that the Clinton camp has deliberately injected race into the campaign in order to damage Barack Obama. Others are criticizing Clinton strategist Mark Penn for saying that Obama "can't win the general election." These latest affronts come only a week after HRC infuriated the netroots by suggesting that John McCain was more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Obama. The ten days that have elapsed since HRC's 3/4 wins have probably been her roughest period in the liberal blogosphere since the race began.

While liberal bloggers are savaging HRC, conservative bloggers are directing their fire at Obama. Controversial statements made by Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright have provided conservatives with additional ammo in their effort to paint Obama as unpatriotic. Righty bloggers see Wright's inflammatory rhetoric and Michelle Obama's controversial words as evidence that Obama lacks respect for the U.S. NRO's Mona Charen sums up this anti-Obama narrative on the right when she states her opposition to "electing [Obama] president of a country that I sincerely believe he does not love."

Meanwhile, as lefty bloggers shred HRC and righty bloggers shred Obama, we're guessing that McCain is somewhere laughing...

DEM FIELD: Florida + Michigan = Florigan?

Liberal bloggers are discussing a possible plan (reported by Time's Mark Halperin) to (1.) split MI's delegates 50-50 between the Clinton and Obama camps, and (2.) seat FL's existing delegates, but with half a vote each.

HRC's online sympathizers are not happy (to put it mildly) about this proposal:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Does anyone think this will salve the wounds? Would Clinton be stupid enough to accept this? This is Howard Dean's plan? How clueless is the Democratic Party?"
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "On January 15, 2008, 594,398 [MI] Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. [...] Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, [John] Edwards or [Joe] Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. [Dennis] Kucinich, [Chris] Dodd and [Mike] Gravel won 5% of the vote. [...] Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama. That's called stealing an election. Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton doesn't think HRC would ever accept this proposal: "I know Clinton has been fairly consistent in her calls for the MI and FL delegates to be seated according to the January primary, but seriously, why would she agree to a compromise that results in something less than a delegate goldmine when the deal would also rob her of potential late big primary victories and all the psychological and media benefits that go along with that? Her entire electability argument targeting the superdelegates is based on having won the 'big 4' states: Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm not sure how much weight the argument is going to have in the first place, but certainly it will be less so if the victories in two of those four states have asterisks next to them as MI & FL currently do. [...] This compromise looks like a sucker bet if you ask me."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, on the other hand, supports splitting MI's delegates 50-50: "This would be cheaper than spending $30 million on hasty contests.[...] Split them all 50/50, and you've got a deal. (As if I have a say in this at all...)"

DEM FIELD II: The Most Important Metric?

Liberal bloggers are discussing Clinton surrogate/PA Gov Ed Rendell's recent statements about the importance of the popular vote count:

AMERICAblog's Jax thinks Rendell's premise is flawed: "You can't give the popular vote the same weight as the delegate count in a mixed system. Some states have primaries. Some states have caucuses. More people turn out for primaries than caucuses. Why? Because it is a heck of a lot easier to show up at some point during the day and push a button than it is to stand around in a gym for two hours and listen to speeches. So states with primaries are better represented than states with caucuses simply because of the type of election processes in place. And the delegate allocation system -- if I am not mistaken -- has been designed specifically to counteract this discrepancy."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen finds Rendell's argument compelling but thinks Obama will win the popular vote anyway: "Rendell's argument has plenty of merit. [...] If one candidate, over the course of 53 or so contests, won more votes than the other, the argument goes, superdelegates would be foolish to dismiss this metric altogether. Fair enough. The problem with the argument is that Obama leads in this category, too, and the available evidence suggests he's also unlikely to relinquish this advantage."

Big Tent Democrat thinks it's useless to speculate: "Steve [Benen] acknowledges the power of that argument while doubting Clinton can win the popular vote. Frankly, speculation from any of us is rather pointless. Let's count the votes when they come in."

DEM FIELD III: Looks Like We're Headed To Denver!

Liberal bloggers think it's increasingly likely that the Obama-HRC battle will last until the Dem convention:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There is a growing sentiment that the 'delegate math' favors Obama, and that he will wrap-up the nomination in June. While this is a sentiment with which I generally agree, upon closer analysis of the delegate math I think that Clinton has a better chance than many realize. In fact, a close look at the delegate math indicates that there is a good chance we will either head to the convention without a presumptive nominee, or head to the convention with a barely presumptive nominee."

Bowers continues: "A question we might want to start asking is how many delegates Obama needs to have in order to get Clinton to concede before the convention in either June or July. Personally, I don't think that number is 2,208, since [the Clinton camp] will almost certainly believe they can flip a handful of superdelegates. The actual number might be something like 2,240 or even higher, which would make the delegate flipping task virtually impossible. Other than losing a state like Pennsylvania or Florida, such an enormous delegate total strikes me as just about the only way Clinton will concede before the convention. If you have noticed anything else in her campaign behavior up until this point that indicates otherwise, I think we are watching different nomination campaigns."

Open Left's Mike Lux: "I think we all need to assume the primary contest is going to the convention, and make plans accordingly. We don't yet know how the MI/FL drama will play out, or whether Obama can pull an upset in PA, or whether uncommitted superdelegates start moving in bigger numbers for one reason or another. If any, or some, of those factors played out in a way that benefits Obama, we could be looking at any easier endgame. But everything about this primary has moved in a way to make it complicated, and I think it is very likely that we're moving right down to the last delegate, hand-to-hand combat fight right down to the end."

CLINTON: Burning Blogger Bridges

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer the Clinton camp for its recent conduct:

• Moulitsas: "Clinton is in a bad place. She is behind in every metric that matters, and has been relegated to trashing our likely nominee and entire Democratic Party constituencies and states in order to make the case that she's somehow 'more electable' despite all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for her, the super delegates aren't all cloistered in New York or in DC. They represent the United States of America. And outside of Clinton's Blue bastions, her insults aren't winning any new converts."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Clinton campaign is always re-setting the bar, cherry-picking what 'counts.' And, the punditry, loving the game and the ratings, plays along. But, this game is dangerous. The longer it goes on -- the more 'kitchen sink' the Clinton campaign throws -- the worse it gets for Democrats. The Clintons can't win this fair and square. She can't win if she has to play by the rules. That's why Harry Reid had to remind 'everyone' that we can't change the rules in the middle of the game. The Clintons want the White House again. They think it is theirs. And, that's all that matters."
• Ezra Klein: "Clinton has no road to the nomination save for the literal destruction of Obama's candidacy. There's no affirmative argument for her campaign that's strong enough to overwhelm his lead in pledged delegates. Rather, she's basically got to cripple him so badly that he can't make it over the finish line. Mark Penn not only has to say that Obama is unelectable, he has to believe he can make it true. And what a shame. What a shame to see Hillary Clinton reduced to this, left insulting the intelligence of the voters and entirely reliant on the politics of personal destruction for her success. And the only possible reward here is a nomination that, if she captures it through this strategy, will probably be worthless anyway."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This morning Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright is in the news again. [...] Particulars aside, the political relevance is to show Wright as angry black man; and to tie him to Obama. If Obama's the nominee, we will see no end of this kind of stuff. And there's probably some small benefit of getting a preview. But the simple fact is that we wouldn't be seeing this stuff now if it weren't for the fact that this is the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton's campaign has decided to wage -- often directly and at other times indirectly by not reining it in in her supporters when it crops up on its own. Wright is news today because Ferraro's been news yesterday. Are her comments racist? That's a loaded, too copious, word. [...] What I do know, however, is that Clinton's campaign and her surrogates have injected the subject of Obama's race into this campaign too many times now for it to be credible to believe that it is anything but a conscious strategy. [...] It is insufficient to say that Republicans will do this in the fall so there's nothing to be lost in hearing it now from Democrats. Because by doing this now, as a Democratic campaign, they are mainstreaming the message. If Obama is the nominee, when this emerges again, no doubt in a harsher, more rancid incarnation, it will come pre-approved by dint of a Democratic campaign's imprimatur."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum defends HRC against (some of) the blogger criticism: "I don't think Hillary has a realistic chance of winning, and I believe she's risking serious damage to the party by hanging on. What's more, her hard-edged, tone deaf recent campaigning ('3 am,' 'commander-in-chief threshold,' Samantha Power) has given us all plenty of reason to be sick and tired of her. But has she been race baiting? I know we all 'know' she has been, but the evidence is spectacularly thin -- and, frankly, there's nothing in Hillary's past to make me think she'd do this. This is really not a charge that we should be throwing around so lightly."

CLINTON II: An Overdose Of Spin

Liberal bloggers are directing much of their criticism toward Clinton strategist Mark Penn, who yesterday told reporters that the PA primary will demonstrate that Obama "can't win the general election":

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The Clinton campaign is really grasping at straws these days. [...] If [Penn's] charge were not so absurd on its face it would merit a long-winded takedown, here and elsewhere. However, in short I'd point readers to a couple of things: One, state-by-state polling showing Barack Obama to be at least as strong a competitor to John McCain as Hillary Clinton, as well as national polling that quite consistently shows Obama either leading McCain or tied with him (and running at least as well as Clinton against McCain) [...] With this in mind, the most sensible conclusion I seem to be able to infer from Penn's statements are that after the Clinton campaign gets done with Obama he won't be able to win a national election -- in other words a promise from the Clinton campaign to make Obama unelectable."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Mark Penn insults our intelligence again, this time by asserting that a loss in Pennsylvania means Obama will have trouble winning Pennsylvania despite polling that shows he's doing better there against McCain than Clinton."
• Sudbay: "With strong support from the Rendell machine and the Mayor of Philadelphia, Hillary should win Pennsylvania by 20 points. But that is irrelevant to the general election."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "What this really reflects, I think, is the difficult (or perhaps impossible) balancing act the Hillary camp is trying to strike between portraying Obama as unfit for the general election to sow doubts among super-delegates while maintaining a posture of loyalty to the larger Democratic cause."

OBAMA: Attackin' The Mac

The netroots are pleased that Obama criticized McCain for changing his position on the George W. Bush tax cuts:

Benen: "It's been a long while since one of the Democratic presidential candidates when after the Republican presidential candidate, so this was a very welcome development. [...] Can we have more of this please? Say, every day for the foreseeable future?"

Beeton: "It's an attack [Obama]'s used in debates and is effective I think both because of how it's delivered ('he was right the first time...') and also because it goes to McCain's perceived strength, his authenticity and his independence from the Republican party line."

OBAMA II: Obama In 30 Seconds

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, which endorsed Obama last month, is launching an ad contest entitled, "Obama in 30 seconds": "Whether you're a total amateur or a total pro, now is the time to use your creativity to help Barack Obama win. We're launching an ad contest: 'Obama in 30 Seconds.' Powered by grassroots enthusiasm, Obama has won the most states and the most delegates. But the race isn't over, and we've got to pull out all the stops to help him across the finish line. We're counting on you to make amazing ads in the next three weeks. Then, MoveOn members and the public will rate the ads, and a panel of top artists, netroots heroes, and filmmaking professionals will pick the winner from among top ads. We'll air the winning ad nationally, and the winner will receive a gift certificate for $20,000 in video equipment."

Open Left's Matt Stoller likes this concept: "In 2004, [MoveOn] pioneered citizen-generated political advertising with their Bush in 30 seconds ad; this time they have another contest along similar lines, though it is for Obama's candidacy over Clinton. They will run the winning ad national. The selection panel has a bunch of stars and politicians on it; I wish there were more a representation of needed Obama voters, but it's a very cool concept."

OBAMA III: Not The Wright Stuff

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who has repeatedly made controversial statements about the U.S.:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Wright isn't just someone with whom Obama is friendly. To criticize Obama for having friends with controversial, or even abhorrent, views would constitute guilt by association. But Wright is Obama's spiritual leader. To be sure, no thinking person always agrees with his minister, priest, or rabbi on political and social issues. But it's unusual for a thinking person to retain an affiliation with a church whose leader attacks his country unless, at a minimum, that person considers those attacks not 'particularly controversial.' Obama should explain why he retained his apparently close affiliation with Wright and his church in more persuasive terms than he has to date. Otherwise, I think it's reasonable to draw adverse inferences based on that affiliation, including the inference that Obama doesn't quite measure up as a 'post-racial' figure."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "When a candidate is discovered to belong to a club or organization that discriminates against women or minorities, he has to leave the club or the campaign. He doesn't get to say that he disagrees with this policy or that rule and stay in the membership. Senator Obama's church leadership has expressed very controversial positions, and he stayed a member through all those sermons on politics. Isn't that like remaining a member of a whites-only golf club?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It was easy enough for Obama to distance himself from [Louis] Farrakhan's comments, because he never solicited or formally accepted Farrakhan's endorsement. But with Wright, Obama has a tougher task. The pastor married Obama and baptized his two daughters, and provided Obama with the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope [...] The hate-filled rhetoric that Wright spews is completely at odds with Obama's own promise to bring people together, and his comparison of Wright to 'an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with' is not going to cut it."
• NRO's John Derbyshire: "The problem conservatives should have with Obama is that Jeremiah Wright's sermons are not 'unorthodox'. They are mainstream among self-consciously black churches and churchgoers -- though far, far to the left of the rest of the country. That Obama reveres this minister, and donates to this church, suggests that he, too, is far, far to the left of the rest of us. Or if not, he owes us some explanation more convincing than the 'crazy uncle' line."

Several bloggers see Wright's statements (as well as previous statements by Michelle Obama) as evidence that Obama is unpatriotic:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "We've previously heard an unorthodox assessment of the American character from Michelle Obama; that, we were told, was a poor word choice or that she couldn't have meant what she actually said. Well, now we're hearing about how rotten a place America is from Obama's pastor as well as from his wife. It's getting harder and harder to believe Barack Obama himself doesn't at least partially share their opinion."
• Michelle Malkin: "Now we know where Michelle Obama's resentment of America comes from. Her profanity-spewing pastor."
• Charen: "I am coming to believe that Barack Obama is one of the greatest con artists we've seen. His entire campaign has been about 'coming together,' a post-racial consensus, etc. Any mention of his middle name was immediately condemned as ignorant fear-mongering. He has played the role of racial unifier with great skill and finesse. But there is a great deal of evidence out there that he is anything but. The Reverend Wright is exhibit A. Mrs. Obama is Exhibit B. But there's lots more. [...] One can have sympathy for [Obama's] psychological predicament. But that sympathy certainly does not extend to electing him president of a country that I sincerely believe he does not love."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's Going On

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."

LEST WE FORGET: Frito-Lay Family Of Products Leaned On During Difficult Time

From The Onion:

"CEDAR RAPIDS, IA -- Thirty-nine-year-old Dwayne Keener, whose marriage and job both recently ended, told reporters Monday that the Frito-Lay family of products -- a wide array of fun and delicious snack foods for all ages -- has proved 'invaluable' in giving him the support and companionship he needs during this trying period in his life. 'I don't know where I'd be without Ruffles, Baken-Ets, or Munchos-brand Potato Crisps to rely on for support,' Keener said during a press conference from his living room sofa, through tears and mouthfuls of Tostitos Restaurant Style with a Hint of Lime Tortilla Chips. 'When my back's against the wall and I feel there's no one to turn to, it's good to know that that crinkly plastic bag is always open.' A spokesman for Frito-Lay suggested that the next time he needs a comforting presence, Keener should try new Cheetos Asteroids-brand 100 Calorie Mini Bites."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:56 PM

March 13, 2008

3/13: Whistling Past The Graveyard?

Hillary Clinton surrogate/ex-VP hopeful Geraldine Ferraro continues to dominate the conversation in the blogosphere, as she defiantly defended her controversial remarks about Barack Obama on several TV shows yesterday before finally resigning from HRC's finance committee. The netroots are livid, as they believe Ferraro is deliberately "dog-whistling" to downscale white voters who feel that they've been hurt by affirmative action. Liberal bloggers are also furious with HRC for not denouncing Ferraro's comments earlier and for not pressuring the ex-congresswoman to apologize (or at least stop talking). Markos Moulitsas writes:

"The Clinton campaign didn't ask for a resignation, and they looked the other way as Ferraro ramped up the racial rhetoric for political gain. It's inexcusable, and whatever Ferraro says from here on out will be on Clinton's head."

Now that many in the netroots (and Keith Olbermann) have turned against HRC, she seems to have alienated an important part of her liberal base. Fortunately for her, she still has a number of liberal bloggers (not to mention Paul Krugman) on her side.

DEM FIELD: My Candidate Is More Electable Than Yours

Following the release of an Obama campaign memo making the case for the IL senator's electability, liberal bloggers are discussing the Obama and Clinton camps' respective electability arguments:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias isn't particularly impressed by either camp's argument: "The Obama campaign sent out an interesting memo earlier today about the Clinton campaign's argument that Clinton has done better in the large swing states Democrats need to carry in November. I think that argument from Clinton is 90 percent hot air (why should we infer general election strength from primary strength) and consequently the counter-argument includes a lot of hot air, too. One bit of solid fact the Obama campaign brings to the table, however, is that Obama states Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota were all extremely close in 2004 (i.e., margins of less than three percent). Optimism-minded Democrats would like to think of 'swing states' as being the states that John Kerry narrowly lost, but it's important to hold on to the states he narrowly won as well."

In a separate post, Yglesias concludes: "The whole thing about Clinton winning the states that matter or the 'big states' just amounts to Ohio. Which is fine as far as it goes, and certainly leads me to believe that if Clinton does wrest the nomination away from Obama she'll probably win on a Clinton-[Ted] Strickland ticket. I just think Obama would probably win too (especially if Clinton can somehow be persuaded to drop out after Pennsylvania thus letting Obama turn his cash and rhetoric against [John] McCain), except with a larger number of states and more Democratic Senators."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen is somewhat skeptical of HRC's "big state" argument: "I've never found [this] argument entirely compelling, but I consider states like Virginia and Missouri pretty big, and if Obama has a better chance of winning these states in November than Clinton, it's an important angle to consider. The next question, at least for me, is whether Clinton's big-state victories are limited exclusively to her. In other words, she won major prizes like California and New York -- but does that mean Obama wouldn't win California and New York? That would matter a great deal, but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect."

Moulitsas thinks HRC's "big state" argument is bogus: "The Clinton campaign claims that since it won the 'big states', it makes her a more effective general election candidate. Let's take a look at that logic. [...] Of [the 10 most populous states], California, New York, and Ohio (all of which Clinton won) are solidly Democratic. California and New York will certainly stay (D) in November. Illinois, which Obama won, is solidly (D) no matter who the nominee is. The two are essentially even in Michigan, while neither is currently competitive in Georgia. Of the states that will be competitive, Obama has clear advantages in Texas and North Carolina, while Clinton has clear advantages in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the electoral math, that is 49 EVs for Obama, 48 for Clinton. Yup, Obama has a one electoral vote advantage from the top 10 'big states' that Clinton can't stop yammering about. [...] No matter how you parse it, the data is clear that Obama is the more competitive November candidate for the Democratic Party."

DEM FIELD II: Hillary's Turf

Now that two consecutive polls show HRC leading Obama by almost 20 points in PA, liberal bloggers are increasingly talking about PA:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "At this point, the bar is getting set fairly high for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, with not one but two polls showing her up by close to 20 points in the Keystone state. That does not mean that expectations for her performance are getting out of hand, because the Clinton campaign has been remarkably adept at managing expectations. In other words, don't be too surprised if this race is portrayed as closer than it is now come the middle of April (regardless of whether the numbers actually tighten up significantly)."
• The Field's Al Giordano crunches the numbers and projects a 92-66 delegate split in favor of HRC: "The press will try to make a race of it. There will surely be polls showing the race tightening, perhaps even suggesting that Obama could win it. But that's just part of the predictable song-and-dance to sell newspapers and up ratings (and hit counts, for the political blogs and news sites that sell ads). The way the odd-numbered delegate districts break down, the demographics, the fact that it's a closed primary (no Independent voters allowed), and its long border with the senator's New York state make it a lead-pipe cinch for Clinton; to the extent that Obama supporters enter the 'no, but yes, we can win it' narrative they'll be walking into a trap."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers disagrees slightly with Giordano: "I think the most likely pledged delegate projection from Pennsylvania is 84-74 in favor of Clinton (plus three add-on delegates), not the 92-66 that Giordano projects. Whatever happens, the task for Obama is to cancel out Clinton's likely Pennsylvania delegate and popular vote gains in Pennsylvania with equally sized, or greater, combined victories in Indiana and North Carolina. If Obama is able to do that, then there is basically no way Clinton can catch up in either the delegate count or the popular vote, especially if there is a re-vote in Michigan. Clinton's goal is to use a victory in Pennsylvania to improve her position in Indiana and North Carolina, racking up a string of victories that will put her close enough to the popular vote and pledged delegate lead that superdelegates could then swing the nomination."
• Moulitsas: "I'll go with Giordano's numbers. That, along with the SUSA poll, is where Clinton needs to be in six weeks to meet expectations -- 19 points in the popular vote, and +26 in the delegate count."

Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers are buzzing about PA GOPers registering as Dems in order to vote for HRC:

• Ankle Biting Pundits' Bull Dog Pundit: "Yesterday I went to the election office at the courthouse and did something I never thought I would ever do -- I officially switched my party registration from Republican to Democrat. I feel I owe it to all of you to explain why. The deadline here in PA is fast approaching wherein you can switch parties and still be eligible to vote in that party's primary on April 22. So I took the plunge, and have decided I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. If Hillary Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary then it is almost certain that she and Obama will continue their fight for the nomination until the August convention. That means four (4) extra months wherein she and Barack will be fighting each other instead of fighting John McCain. [...]"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Pennsylvania vote-rushers, you have 11 more days. Hillary's looking pretty solid in Pennsylvania as is...but that isn't stopping some Pennsylvania conservatives from switching their party registration to Democrat in order to vote for Hillary in the April 22 primary. [...] If Hillary does get the nomination, I want her to thank Rush Limbaugh in her convention speech.

CLINTON: Time To Reject And Denounce?

As Ferraro continued to defend her controversial remarks about Obama, liberal bloggers urged HRC to publicly denounce the ex-congresswoman's comments:

Moulitsas: "[Ferraro] is like a lunatic. A racist one, ginning up white resentment for the benefit of a key Clinton demographic. What's worse, she's keeping it up today with the clear tacit approval of the Clinton campaign, who have no problem keeping her as a surrogate and member of her finance committee. [...] Clearly, they've made a calculated decision that this is good politics in certain parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, so why put the brakes on it?"

Firedoglake's Pachacutec: "There's really not much more to say about this that has not already been said elsewhere, but I just wanted to pile on a bit, as it's gotten beyond disgusting. Ferraro's unrepentant comments are beyond the pale and the Clinton campaign should take serious, serious crap for keeping her on the campaign finance committee. This kind of unreconstructed, race blind idiocy (at best, blatantly ignorant racism at worst) needs to be called out by Senator Clinton, personally, in my view."

Benen: "I'm going to assume that the Clinton campaign has some influence with Ferraro. She is, after all, a campaign surrogate and finance-team member. With this in mind, maybe someone from the team can give Ferraro a call and say, 'For the love of God, please stop talking.'"

The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "The Clinton campaign has yet to reject or denounce Ferraro's unapologetic bigotry, nor her continued defense and reiteration of the initial trespass. The Clintons are sticking with Ferraro. When have we witnessed this behavior before? Sticking with someone who's clearly wrong?"

CLINTON II: KO'ed

Although Ferraro resigned from Clinton's finance committee last night, liberal bloggers remain upset with both her and HRC:

• Moulitsas: "I see that Ferraro just resigned the campaign so she can conveniently spew this bullshit without being directly linked to Clinton, but the two are now inseparable. The Clinton campaign didn't ask for a resignation, and they looked the other way as Ferraro ramped up the racial rhetoric for political gain. It's inexcusable, and whatever Ferraro says from here on out will be on Clinton's head."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "If one can think of resignation letters on a continuum of repentant to defiant, this one definitely falls less on the 'gee, I'm sorry' side of the continuum and more on the 'screw those jerks who are making me step down' side. [...] Senator Clinton, you can no longer simply state that it's 'regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal.' It's to for you to personally 'reject and denounce' the race-baiting statements of Geraldine Ferraro. Your failure to do so will make it look like you hope to benefit from the attempts of your allies to create racial divisions and exploit fear."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Having done the dirty work, Ferraro is 'stepping down' from [the] Clinton campaign. [...] Ferraro has been in the game for a long time. She gets it. She knows how the media operates. She knows the impact of her words. She is, after all, a Fox News consultant with her own Fox News bio. The Clinton campaign also knew exactly what was happening. They didn't stop it. And, it's hard to imagine Howard Wolfson and his crew couldn't rein in Ferraro."

MSNBC's liberal pundit Keith Olbermann slammed HRC in his ten-minute "Special Comment" last night, criticizing her "tepid response" to Ferraro's comments and accusing her of "campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican." Olbermann prefaced his Special Comment by posting a diary on Daily Kos: "My point tonight is that the resignation of Geraldine Ferraro from the Finance Committee of Senator Clinton's campaign is a lost opportunity for the candidate to do simply do the proverbial, cheesy, cornball, 'right thing.' [...] It sounds as if [Clinton's] advisors want their campaign to be associated with [Ferraro's] words, and the cheap...ignorant...vile...racism that underlies every syllable. And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance. Senator Clinton: This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact."

• Ezra Klein thinks Olbermann's statement is significant: "If you're running for the Democratic nomination for president, it's probably not a good sign when the only credible liberal anchor on television carves out 10 minutes of his show to blast you for 'running like a Republican.' But that's exactly what Olbermann did tonight. As they say, politics ain't beanbag, but a lot of very decent people are outraged by the Clinton campaign's recent behavior. And that actually matters. Remember that the Clinton campaign doesn't just need votes right now. They need superdelegates. [...] How, after Ferraro's comments, can the Clinton campaign credibly argue that the superdelegates can reverse the result of the primary process without triggering a massive rift between the party and African-American voters?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, does not support Olbermann's remarks: "I have always accepted that Keith Olbermann's Countdown show was a biased broadcast. And that he favored the progressive and Democratic point of view on things in his choice of stories, tone and reporting. He was the Dems' Faux Noise, but sticking to the facts (while admittedly ignoring others.) But I never expected him to become Barack Obama's Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh. But he has. In some respects, his 'Special Comment' tonight comes too late for Obama, as Olbermann is already thoroughly discredited as an observer of this campaign."

CLINTON III: The View From The Right

Several conservative bloggers agree with what Ferraro is saying about Obama:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Geraldine Ferraro has been able to give voice to what lies beneath much of the campaigns' verbal jousting: the contention that, for all his post-racial themes, Obama is simply the beneficiary of racial politics. [...] Ferraro now has Democrats openly discussing this touchy subject. And that, more than math, is what gives Clinton hope."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Ferraro was] sacked for stating the obvious. [...] Without the racial piece, Obama is just another smart, talented, flashy politician who over-promises. How many white politicians have ever come so far on this thin a resume? I can't think of any. Obama obviously is not to blame for gaining advantage due to his race. Clinton, after all, almost certainly got as far as she did because she was married to a popular former president. Few politicians make it all the way to the top without some sort of advantage they didn't earn. It just seems unfortunate that, in Obama's case, there's a stiff penalty for pointing to his unearned advantage."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The shtick of [Obama's] surrogates screaming racism whenever anyone mentions his shallowness or middle name will not play in the general election like it does in the primary. After all, his middle name is what it is and he is a shallow man lacking much substance to the right of George McGovern."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker has a different take: "It's easy to say, and it's probably true, that if Obama were entirely white, instead of half white, he would be a back-bench Senator with no claim on national attention. [...] Having said that, the appropriate response may be, so what? Obama is a man of extraordinary ability and great political skill. [...] Obama deserves to be engaged on his own terms. I agree with him on virtually nothing, but respect him as a man who has taken his case to the voters in a good old-fashioned way, so far successfully. His race is irrelevant to us, and if his candidacy demonstrates that it is irrelevant to most Americans, that can only be a good thing."

Other conservative bloggers are focusing on the political dimensions of the Ferraro controversy:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Ferraro's comments have amplified the identity-politics polarization that Bill Clinton started in South Carolina, and the timing couldn't be better for Hillary. The primaries now go through states with high proportions of white working-class Democratic voters such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky. Hillary may repudiate Ferraro, but she will benefit from her comments."
• Erickson agrees: "The Clintons are not fools. They see the polling trends that Obama is getting less and less of the white vote. And they aim to capitalize on that fact. I'll say again what I've said before: the Clinton campaign will do anything, even destroy the great racial coalition of the Democratic Party, to get back into office. They crave power above all else and they, at the end of the day, in it for themselves, not the Democratic Party."
• Geraghty: "There's been an interesting dynamic in Democratic circles for the past three months or so. [...] Democrats who support Hillary have found themselves being called racist. And Democrats who support Obama have found themselves being called sexist. Neither group likes it, and both of them are probably feeling the way conservatives have felt for the past thirty years or so. Suddenly many Democrats see how those accusations can be used to cut off further discussion and demonize the other side as beyond the pale."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Joe's Gotta Go?

Obsidian Wings' publius, probably speaking for many in the netroots, is tired of Joe Lieberman:

"I'm not exactly a huge Joe-Momentum fan. But up until now, I've disagreed with calls to strip him of seniority and committee assignments. As long as he cast his first vote for Harry Reid, I frankly didn't care what he did or what he said on the Sunday talk shows. In fact, I favored giving him room to be as wankerous as he wanna be, so long as it kept him inside the tent.

But that said, actively supporting the Republican nominee for President crosses a line. If I were Reid, I would (quietly at first) tell him to knock it off. And if he doesn't, he should be stripped of everything next term. Let his transformation to Republican become complete.

And there's more here involved than just personal dislike for a spoiled, bitter man whose pettiness and self-righteousness knows no bounds. There's a very real chance that John McCain will be President next year, alongside a Democratic Congress. If Dems can't get Joe-Momentum's crucial Oversight Committee to lift a finger against Bush, then it certainly won't take steps against his BFF McCain."

LEST WE FORGET: That's A Long Bathroom Break

Jezebel's Moe Tkacik reacts to the story of the KS woman who sat on her boyfriend's toilet for two years:

"Holy scat...A 35-year-old woman in Kansas sat on her boyfriend's toilet for two years. She sat so long she became fused to the toilet. And for two years her boyfriend brought her food on the john. Her neighbor said the news 'really doesn't surprise me'; he hadn't seen her in six years. Who are these people? Well, drug addicts obviously. But what drug glues you to a toilet for two years? And what, after two years, finally prompts your boyfriend to call someone? The story points out helpfully that their house 'had another bathroom he could use.' Did it get clogged or something? Or did she finally make it through the huge stack of New Yorkers?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

March 12, 2008

3/12: A Return To Identity Politics

We reported yesterday that the netroots are angry with Hillary Clinton surrogate/ex-VP hopeful Geraldine Ferraro for saying, "If [Barack] Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position...He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." Now the netroots are even more furious with Ferraro, who defiantly accused Obama supporters of "attacking me because I'm white." Liberal bloggers are calling Ferraro's remarks "outrageous," "pointless," and "obviously false." Markos Moulitsas posted a Ferraro quote from 1988 (in which she said, "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race") and declared, "Okay, I'm convinced. Geraldine Ferraro is a bona fide racist." Once again, the issue of race has reared its ugly head in the Dem primary -- just as MS exit polls reveal a (predictably) racially polarized electorate.

While many liberal bloggers have called on HRC to denounce Ferraro's statements (she has already said she does "not agree" with Ferraro's words), HRC has so far refused. It appears that her campaign does not mind keeping the issue alive for a few more days. Perhaps they figure (as several bloggers have suggested) that keeping the race issue front and center will benefit Clinton's campaign in the upcoming primaries in PA, IN, and KY.

DEM FIELD: Can She Catch Him?

Moulitsas crunches the numbers and concludes that Obama's popular vote lead is "about 833,000": "Unless Obama suffers an epic collapse, he should end this contest with a lead in the popular vote, a lead in the pledged delegates, and a lead in the number of states won. Clinton will apparently attempt her coup by super delegates, but that path lies civil war. I doubt the supers are that stupid."

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt includes the FL vote in his math and calculates that Obama leads by "400,000 votes": "There might be a scenario where Clinton comes out of this with more popular votes than Obama, but it's hard to see it. [...] Clinton doesn't have to drop out, now or ever. But it's definitely the point in the campaign where responsible runners-up have to hold their fire a bit, because a no-holds-barred attack is vastly more likely to damage the nominee than to make Clinton the nominee. Look at John Edwards in 2004 as a role model for gracefully playing out the clock."

Open Left's Chris Bowers, on the other hand, thinks HRC can still win the delegate race: "In order to win the nomination, Clinton needs to win at least 93 more delegates than Obama before the convention. If she does so, her delegates plus Edwards delegates will force a brokered convention, even if every single superdelegate makes an endorsement beforehand. That requires 53.8% of the remaining delegates. While difficult, that is certainly not impossible, especially if she goes on a winning streak starting in Pennsylvania. In order to win 50% +1 before the convention, she needs 687.5 delegates, or 56.0% of those that remain. While that is starting to enter highly unlikely territory, it is also a reason why she is starting to organize in multi-tiered delegate contests."

DEM FIELD II: Why Did Florida & Michigan Have To Be So Difficult?

Moulitsas opposes seating FL and MI delegates "as is": "Here's how you seat [FL's delegates] -- you cut them in half for breaking the rules, like the GOP did, and then you assign them 50/50 each to Obama and Clinton. Presto! Issue solved. [This] would work with Michigan, too. States and future candidates need to know that the rules will be enforced. If they are not, there's no way we can enforce a new calendar without New Hampshire and Iowa at the head. They'll break the rules, and candidates fearful that the results will count will have no choice but to campaign, defeating the purpose of the new calendar. Anyone who wants our primary calendar reformed can't possibly allow Michigan and Florida to be seated as is."

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy also opposes seating FL's delegates "as is": "The whole reason this mess got started was that the Democratic party is trying to impose some sort of order on the primary system, so that everyone doesn't just rush to the first possible day. This cannot happen if they don't actually enforce their rules. I'd be happy with a redo of any kind, but just seating the delegates in the primary they held against the rules would wreck any hopes of having a remotely rational primary system next time, or even actually deciding, as a party, to just let everyone vote on the same day."

MyDD's Todd Beeton wants re-votes: "Senator Clinton wants the delegates seated according to the vote in January; kos thinks it should be a 50-50 split. I'm not a fan of either. Look, it's no accident that Florida and Michigan are the only states in which Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout. Those were not real representations of the Democratic primary electorate and for state representatives to keep the will of their own constituents from counting in this historic election when the will of every other state in the country, even Puerto Rico and Guam, will, would be a true shame, especially when the dis-enfranchisement was a result of a scheme perpetrated by the Republican-led state legislature."

DEM FIELD III: Pennsylvania Looks Like Clinton Country

Several liberal bloggers are commenting on the new SurveyUSA poll showing HRC leading Obama by 19 points in PA:

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "The election is six weeks away, and things will probably get very interesting between now and then. But Barack Obama definitely has a lot of ground to make up if he wants to pull off an upset."

Moulitsas: "Clinton's expectations are set for Pennsylvania: 19 points. [...] This is what she should be expected to do that day. If she meets them, she still won't have the numbers to get her to any reasonable definition of victory, but she has at least done something. Not sure what, but something. Anything less, and it'll be clear that Obama has eaten into her lead and she's bleeding support and would need to seriously reconsider what is becoming a quixotic bid."

CLINTON: Geraldine Digs In

We reported yesterday that the netroots are angry with Ferraro for saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position...He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." Now the netroots are even angrier with Ferraro, who remains defiant in the face of criticism:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

• Moulitsas: "Ferraro is unhappy that people are calling b.s. on her suggestion that Obama is winning only because he's black (which clearly was a huge advantage for Presidents Jackson and Sharpton). This is officially really bad for Clinton. The Obama campaign quickly removed a relatively obscure adviser for calling Clinton the apparently dreaded and beyond-the-pale 'M' word. How does Clinton react to Ferraro's race baiting? She turns around and accuses Obama of playing the race card. Wow."
• Bowers: "[Ferraro's] response depresses me, since it comes from someone who is otherwise known as a trailblazer and for fighting the good fight at a time when it was unpopular to do so. [...] I guess that Ferraro thinks, as Marc Ambinder wrote, that 'running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy.' Or perhaps she thinks that the only reason Obama is winning the campaign is because so many African-Americans are voting for him. Even if that is true, doesn't it occur to Ferraro that one of the main reasons African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for Obama is because of statements like this from Clinton surrogates?"
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Can anyone seriously claim that it's an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race? Happily what we're now seeing is that it does not in itself seem to be an eliminating factor in a presidential race. But an advantage? [...] You might support Obama or not, think he's qualified or an empty suit but suggesting he's only where he is now because he's black is something much worse than outrageous. It just seems obviously false."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Saying this kind of thing is both pointless (Obama also wouldn't be where he is if he was three feet tall and born in Siberia) and offensive in that it insults the actual talents and appeal of politicians from traditionally disadvantaged groups. It's the same logic conservatives use to belittle any successful person who isn't a white man as an 'affirmative action hire.' [...] Ferraro should apologize and if she doesn't Clinton should do more than say she 'disagrees.'"
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Ferraro is trying to appeal to insecure white women who believe they've put in their time and now they're entitled to get their woman president, and nobody should be allowed to take away their presidency and give it to the Black guy who hasn't earned it. [...] I want the person I believe is our best candidate to earn our nomination. Geraldine Ferraro wants the woman to get the nomination instead of the Black guy. Hillary Clinton says Ferraro's comments are regrettable. I think Clinton should declare that the attitudes and beliefs underlying Ferraro's comments are repugnant."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Top Hillary surrogate: You're attacking me because I'm white. No, because you're an idiot."
• Atrios: "Six weeks is a long time [before PA]. I hope Clinton surrogates decide against having racial resentment be a key feature of campaign rhetoric."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks Obama supporters are foolish to draw attention to Ferraro's remarks: "I think [Obama's] campaign has made a mistake drawing focus on an issue and some statements that will not be helpful to their campaign and to the Democratic Party. I think the supporters of [Obama's campaign] and the news network that supports that campaign are making a similar mistake. Especially in light of the [MS] results to come tonight. I am quite depressed about the whole thing."

Slate's Mickey Kaus agrees: "Does the Obama campaign really want to prolong this controversy? Doesn't he need white male votes in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina? Didn't that Jesse Helms ad work? Just asking!"

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner: "After Senator Clinton disavowed Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama and race, Ferraro proceeded to dig a little deeper by saying the Obama camp was harassing her because she was white. Surely she had become an embarassment to the Clinton campaign, I thought; we won't be seeing her much anymore. But wait, here she is on Good Morning America. [...] She stopped by CBS's Early Show, too; clearly the Clinton folks see some benefit in stirring up these issues."

CLINTON II: Keep Talking, Geraldine!

Conservative bloggers are also discussing Ferraro's comments:

• RedState's Moe Lane loves Ferraro's comments: "Oh, that's just fine, Ms. Ferraro. Keep it up: we've got weeks and weeks to go before Pennsylvania. What? Oh, don't mind me. I'm just going to be over here, watching Democrats scream 'racist' at each other while sharpening their knives. You keep on doing what you're doing."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Ferraro refuses to retreat. In fact, now she claims that critics only attack her because she's white. [...] In Vegas, this is known as 'doubling down'. In politics, it's considered 'suicide'. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, whites don't make a sympathetic victim class, so Ferraro's whining does nothing to further her cause -- and makes her sound like a bigot."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "This is very rich, as Barbara Bush might say, of a Clinton supporter. After all, doesn't Hillary Clinton benefit from who she is? Not many people are lucky enough to have been married to a president of the United States before seeking the office themselves."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "There is an unappealing note of whininess to Ferraro's comment. Is it somehow unfair for Obama to keep being black? But Ferraro is clearly right as an analytical matter. Some Obama supporters back him because they want to make history -- and his race has a lot to do with their belief that he will. It is also the reason he has such strong support from African Americans, without which Clinton would be beating him."
• RedState's Feddie: "While Ramesh [Ponnuru] is right in many respects, I don't think it is fair to Barack Obama to suggest that he is in the position he is today primarily because of his race. In my view, Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton because he knows who he is (read: authentic), and is able to communicate his vision for the United States, flawed as it is, in a way that Hillary could never dream of."

MCCAIN: Romney For Veep?

Several conservative bloggers are discussing Mitt Romney's statement that he would be "honored" to serve as John McCain's running mate:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff doubts McCain would offer Romney the VP spot: "Not only did McCain seem to dislike Romney, he also appeared not to respect him. This was because Romney had changed several of his positions, in McCain's view, entirely for political purposes. When I was on McCain's bus in November, Romney was the only political figure in either party McCain spoke ill of without prompting. However, Romney meets the two tests McCain articulated on the bus for his running mate: he is capable of performing well as president and he is high knowledgeable about economic issues."

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin is also dubious: "I have a feeling that McCain and his inner circle are too bitter about Team Romney's attacks during the primaries to consider a McCain-Romney ticket. It would be hard to overstate how much some DC McCainiacs dislike Romney. But I could be wrong."

Ponnuru: "The exit polls out of the Michigan primary make me think that Romney might help the ticket there."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Landslide Year...For The GOP?

NRO's Jim Geraghty is feeling increasingly confident about McCain's chances:

"Since McCain solidified the nomination, and since the Hillary and Obama fight turned ugly, periodically I've heard conservatives express a strange confidence about 2008. It's as if they don't want to say it too loudly, lest they jinx it...If nothing else, McCain seems to be matching up quite well in the general election, and both Democratic nominees have glaring weaknesses. [...]

Nominate Hillary, and Team McCain ought to be able to strip away independents, moderates, and frustrated Obama supporters who will prefer a reform-minded maverick Republican over the woman who played dirty to take down their man. [...] Nominate Obama, and Team McCain ought to be able to strip away large swaths of the white working class vote, the Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, seniors, and Hillary backers who see the Illinois Senator as dangerously unprepared for the challenges of the office.

And so suddenly what looked like a terrible year for the GOP might...I emphasize, might...be a really good year. [...] If I had told you a year ago that McCain would lead both Hillary and Obama in both Michigan and Pennsylvania (albeit by a small margin), would you have believed me?"

LEST WE FORGET: Actor Matthew McConaughey Agrees To Star In Whatever

From The Onion:

"AUSTIN, TX -- Actor Matthew McConaughey announced Tuesday that he has accepted a 6, maybe $7 million offer to star in Whatever. 'I'm happy to do Whatever. You know I'm easy, brother,' McConaughey said of his upcoming role as a laid-back dude. 'As long as the beer is cold and I can take my shirt off, I'm in. Well, all right.' Whatever, slated for release either late this year or next, will be directed by this one guy with whom McConaughey has worked before, and will also star Kate Hudson."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

March 11, 2008

3/11: Look At The Math, People!

Hillary Clinton's rough week in the liberal blogosphere continues as bloggers criticize HRC surrogate/ex-VP hopeful Geraldine Ferraro for saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position...He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." Meanwhile, Obama's netroots supporters -- including, most prominently, Markos Moulitsas -- are pushing back against the CW that the Dem race is "up in the air". In their view, Barack Obama's delegate lead -- combined with the rate at which he has been accumulating superdelegates since the 3/4 contests -- makes him the strong favorite to win the Dem nod. Because so many liberal bloggers believe that Obama (barring a massive collapse) will eventually win the nomination, it is easy to see why they react so angrily to HRC's repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Obama. In their view, this line of attack undermines the future Dem nominee.

DEM FIELD: Revote! Revote! Revote!

Open Left's Chris Bowers is adamant about the need for an MI revote: "I honestly don't care if there is a revote in Florida or not. Simply put, I don't think a revote will change the results all that much, although Obama probably gain a handful of delegates compared to current projections. [...] By contrast, a revote in Michigan is absolutely essential in order to avoid a gigantic mess once the voting is over in June. Without a revote in Michigan, we are headed to smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors, then to the credentials committee, and then to the floor of the convention in late August. And whatever happens, people will leave the party in droves once it is all over. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. [...] Now, given that Hillary Clinton is talking about pledged not delegates not being fixed either...we are probably going to the convention no matter what happens. However, there is a difference between going all the way to the convention without a presumptive nominee, and going all the way to the convention with a presumptive nominee. The latter is easily acceptable, [but] the former is a serious problem for the party, and needs to be avoided."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher wants revotes in both MI and FL: "I think we were all hoping that the race would be decided by now and that the two states could be seated as-is without affecting the final outcome, but that didn't happen. And as Howard Deanreminds us , having Florida and Michigan submit proposals for a re-vote of some kind is well within 'the rules.' Both Governor [Jennifer] Granholm and Governor [Charlie] Crist say they are in favor of a re-vote, so the question becomes -- who's going to pay for it? According to the DNC, a re-vote -- estimated to cost $20 million -- can be paid for with soft money. Why don't the foundations committed to promoting democracy around the world -- Ford, Pew, Open Society etc. -- step up and foot the bill here in the US?"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat also wants revotes in both MI and FL: "I am for [revotes] because we must have accepted Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention to establish the legitimacy of our chosen nominee and strengthen our chances in the Presidential and Congressional races in those states come November. [...] And believe you me, if Obama wins BECAUSE Michigan and Florida are excluded...his nomination will NOT be viewed as legitimate by many many people, especially the people of Florida and Michigan. Nor will the Party look legitimate."

DEM FIELD II: The Netroots Go Meta

Several liberal bloggers responded to the Jerome Armstrong post that we mentioned yesterday, in which Armstrong criticized Obama's online supporters for supporting a candidate who is "not representative of the type of progressive partisanship" that the netroots (supposedly) preach:

Bowers: "The progressive movement, the netroots, the blogosphere -- none of it is about one thing. It never was, and the distribution is only becoming more widespread by the day. There will be some consolidation during the general election campaign, but once that is over the fracturing will continue apace. [...] We all have different goals. Mine are not subsumed under Obama vs. Clinton, or about 'fighting Dems' creating a more partisan Democartic base. One of those goals is to forge a winning electoral coalition that can support a progressive governing majority. If one candidate in a primary has a modestly larger amount of that future coalition, from my perspective that is a perfectly logical reason to support that candidate. Deal with it."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Partisanship is a strategy for social change. Why wouldn't a political party want more adherents? Jerome points to Chris's discussion of Reagan Democrats, and the futility of chasing them as a voting block, and argues this is inconsistent with his points about the Obama coalition. While I think Clinton's activation of the Latino base is very significant and under-emphasized in Chris's analysis, I don't get Jerome's point. Chris is arguing something very simple: old white racist men are not going to be a good part of a progressive coalition. He is not saying that current independents and Republicans in suburbs that are rapidly becoming part of a larger creative metropolitan economy aren't part of that coalition."

CLINTON: The Hits Just Keep On Coming

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro for making the following statement:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

• Moulitsas: "More classiness, from one of Clinton's top surrogates, Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro isn't some unknown lower-level or obscure advisor, but one of her top fundraisers, member of Clinton's finance committee, and a former Democratic vice presidential nominee."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Geraldine Ferraro -- nominated as Vice President almost entirely because she was a woman -- ridiculing Barack Obama's rise as supposedly due to his race is a case of the pot calling the kettle black."
• Bowers: "Let's conduct a thought experiment. Of the previous forty-three Presidents of the United States, would a single one of them who would have ever been elected if he was not white? I can't. Now, unless you can think of an exception, this would mean that every single president to date partially owes his success to being white. By no means is it the only reason, but clearly it is a privilege."
• On the right side of the blogosphere, NRO's Jim Geraghty is delighted by Ferraro's remarks: "Awesome. Tell me again how the Democratic party is going to unify and forget about all this once they have a nominee."

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton strategist Mark Penn for declaring that Obama's "Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he's the most liberal Democratic senator."

• Moulitsas: "Mark Penn's spinning is making me dizzy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Clinton campaign very recently arguing that Obama wasn't a real Democrat because independents and Republicans were voting for him?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's nice that Hillary's campaign is now using the most vicious of right-wing talking points to not only demonize Obama, but demonize a good portion of the Democratic party as well. For decades the Republicans have used the word 'liberal' as a slur in order to hurt Democrats across the board, and now Hillary's doing it too."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias accuses HRC of "egotism": "Were Hillary Clinton not determined to drag out the Democratic primary despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead, John McCain would, right now, be groaning under the yoke of a massive advertising campaign designed to define him and Obama in the public eye for the first time. [...] The landscape still strongly favors the Democrats, but it's much less favorable than it would have been were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement."

Finally, Aravosis unloads on HRC: "Hillary will say anything in order to become president, and if that means demonizing half the states in the country, half the party, and our probable nominee, then so be it. You'd think the dynasty that brought us 'Monica' would be reticent about going bitterly negative. Not so much. If Obama wanted to do, he could destroy Hillary by reminding everyone of the bad side of a Clinton administration -- non-stop scandal, and rather prurient scandal at that. (Does anyone really think it's not going to happen all over again if Hillary and Bill [Clinton] get back in the White House?) But Obama has more class than Hillary -- a fact she's proving more and more each day."

OBAMA: One Word -- SCOREBOARD

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Obama still has the inside track to the nomination, even though the media is describing the race as tied:

DHinMI: "Provided [Obama] doesn't kill his own candidacy, the math is on his side, and he's almost certain to be the nominee. [...] If Obama and Clinton split the remaining pledged delegates 50/50, Obama would need only 35% of the unpledged delegates (aka superdelegates) who haven't yet committed to a candidate, while Clinton would need 65% of them. Since Clinton has added few unpledged delegates since January, while Obama adds unpledged delegates at a rate of 3 to 1 over Clinton, it's hard to imagine how she gets the nomination...except by benefiting from the destruction of Barack Obama as a viable presidential candidate."

Moulitsas: "So CW is that last week was the 'week from hell' for Obama, and given that he could've closed this thing out and didn't, we can stipulate that it could've been better. [...] But where it matters -- in the delegate race -- Obama ended his week from hell TIED with Clinton. Furthermore, there's an 'unpledged' Wyoming delegate still to be decided. He or she will be selected at Wyoming's state convention, and is selected by the elected delegates from Saturday's caucus. In other words, it's going to be another Obama delegate. So unofficially, Obama actually won the delegate race last week. As Clinton gears up her efforts for coup by super delegate, threatening civil war within the party, it bears noting that in her best week of the campaign since her New Hampshire victory, she actually lost ground in the race."

In a later post, Moulitsas adds: "Obama [has earned] a four-delegate victory since last Tuesday. Add the four delegate gain out of California after that state's vote was certified, and we're up to 8 delegates for Obama. Throw in the four delegates Clinton lost in California, and that's 12 delegates for Obama. Today we had DNC member and super delegate Everett Sanders of Mississippi endorsing Obama, so make that 13 delegates for Obama. So officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this 'week from hell' for him. [...] A few more 'bad' weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up."

Bowers: "In this primary, campaign narratives seem to always be lagging behind polling and delegate reality. It took the press a long time to realize that Super Tuesday may have been a tie, but it actually left Obama in a far superior position. Before March 4th, it seemed to take them a long time to realize that there was no clear reason for Clinton to drop out of the campaign if she won Ohio. And now, after March 4th, it seems to be taking them a long time to realize that Clinton has made no measurable impact on Obama's overall lead in polls, delegates, or money."

SPITZER: Bloggers React To The Sex Scandal

The view from the left:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "As with David Vitter and Larry Craig, my official position is: who cares. This stuff shouldn't be illegal in the first place and I don't care what these guys do in their private time."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Are there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn't their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?"
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "It's not as if [Eliot Spitzer] didn't aggressively prosecute other people for similar actions when he was AG. I don't have any sympathy for him."
• Bowers: "This is a serious blow. I feel as though progressives have lost their top bench contender for President of the Unites States. Spitzer could have run against a Republican in 2012 or 2016. He could have run for an open seat in 2016. He could have even been a possible primary challenger in 2012 if a Democratic President had screwed up and sold us out really badly."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Bright side: It takes the drivers licenses for illegals issue off the table!"
• Yglesias: "I wonder, though, if this won't make people worry about the fact that putting Bill Clinton back in the White House seems to raise the possibility of once again having a Democratic administration derailed by a sex scandal."

The view from the right:

• Michelle Malkin: "For those few delusional apologists who want to argue that Spitzer engaged in a victimless crime, here are four of Spitzer's innocent victims. Looking at that beautiful family makes the utter lack of remorse and humility in Spitzer's appearance yesterday all the more mind-boggling."
• Commentary's John Podhoretz: "Eliot Spitzer is a crook. [...] The rules don't apply to Eliot Spitzer, or at least, that's how Eliot Spitzer has acted throughout his public life. Sic transit gloria mundi."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "In the poetic justice department, it is simply delicious that a man who made his name by sanctimonously destroying the reputations of his enemies by attacking their ethics, would go down in disgrace over a salacious scandal."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If Spitzer thought that prostitution should be legal, he has been in uniquely well-suited positions to make that argument. Instead, he positioned himself publicly as disgusted by the exploitation of women through prostitution, even campaigning on it. That isn't just a story about a married man going to a prostitute, it's a story of hypocrisy and deception."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "No doubt it's a sad day for Governor Spitzer -- long a Democrat shining light -- and his family. They merit our compassion on a personal level. But it's appropriate and right that the Governor resign."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Given his aggressive and sometimes controversial prosecution of white collar crimes, including prostitution, and his hardball political methods, some will take satisfaction in Spitzer's downfall. Not me. It's a sad story, most of all for his family. Human frailty knows no political or social boundaries, and the consequences often fall most heavily on the innocent."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Sorry, but I feel for the guy (even if he is a Clinton super-delegate). If he broke the law, he broke the law and will have to face the consequences, I suppose. Still: as far as I'm concerned, this is between him and his family. And it's really silly that prostitution is illegal."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Governor Giuliani?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"...It's hard to imagine Rudy Giuliani mustering the energy to run for governor of the Empire State in the looming post-Spitzer era. I will say, though, that if Rudy did still harbor political ambitions (and its hard to imagine that a man with his ego is thrilled to have the '08 primary season remembered his political swan song), a term in Albany would offer certain attractions. He could govern from the center-left and try to revive the Rockefeller-Republican brand for a new era of Democratic dominance. Or he could govern from the right, picking fights with blue-state interest groups in the hopes of retooling his image with conservatives in time for the 2016 Presidential race. (He'd only be 70 -- younger than McCain!)

Laugh if you will, but stranger things have happened, and the Republican Party will look very different eight years from now than it does today. Rudy won't try it, but he wouldn't be crazy if he did."

LEST WE FORGET: Standing By Their Man

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein complains:

"When politicians are caught cheating, I wish they'd leave their wives in the green room while they address the press. You're in the dog house, and it should look that way. Those 'stand by your man' visuals are tired and demeaning."

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle agrees:

"How many men do you think would really do the same for their wives? Consider it: You wake up one morning to discover that the papers are awash in juicy details (and even juicier innuendo) about how you are such a loser that your woman went out looking to pay some young stud to scratch her itch. You are utterly humiliated. You want nothing more than to phone the meanest divorce lawyer in the state. Instead, you get to shower, shave, put on your special-occasion tie, and try your best to look aggrieved yet supportive while standing two-steps behind your lying, cheating tramp of a wife -- possibly even holding her hand -- in front of God and 10,000 drooling reporters all thinking that you must be the most pitiful creature on the planet. Riiiight. That's gonna happen a lot."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:56 PM

March 10, 2008

3/10: A Community Divided?

The sharp divisions that the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle has produced (or revealed?) in the Dem electorate are also being reflected in the liberal blogosphere. The 800-pound gorilla of the lefty blog world -- Daily Kos -- is now dominated by Obama supporters, while smaller (but still influential) blogs such as MyDD, TalkLeft, and Taylor Marsh have become hubs for HRC supporters. In what is perhaps a metaphor for the divisions roiling the greater netroots community, Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong -- the respective proprietors of Daily Kos and MyDD and the co-authors of the 2006 netroots manifesto Crashing The Gate -- now find themselves on opposite sides of the HRC-Obama divide. While Moulitsas spent most of 2007 on the fence, he recently became "an enthusiastic Obama supporter" after witnessing the Obama camp's dedication to competing in traditionally red and purple states. Armstrong, on the other hand, thinks HRC's base of women and Latinos makes her a safer general election bet than "the gamble of going with an untested Obama."

In addition to supporting different candidates, Moulitsas and Armstrong also find themselves on different sides of a debate about Howard Dean's legacy. When The Nation's Ari Berman wrote a piece portraying Obama as the heir to Dean's 50-state strategy, Moulitsas praised the piece while Armstrong mocked it. It appears that the outcome of the HRC-Obama battle will affect not only the electoral map in November, but also the legacy of the very first netroots candidate.

DEM FIELD: Looking Ahead

Liberal bloggers continue to debate HRC's general election strength vs. Obama's:

Armstrong favors HRC: "I think she's got a better shot at winning than the gamble of going with the untested Obama. [...] Women composed about 60 percent of the electorate in both the Ohio and Texas primaries. Amazing. The Latino vote in Texas was nearly 1/3rd of the electorate, up from 25 percent in 2004. [...] That's Clinton's base, women and Latinos, many of them whom voted Republican or Independent previously (for anecdotal example), or haven't voted at all, that Clinton is turning into Democrats. It's immensely under-appreciated, and god-forbid, may actually have coattails. Neither am I convinced that Obama will just as easily be able to tap into these supporters of Clinton. [...] I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat also has major doubts about Obama: "Obama's political style remains a roll of the dice, both electorally and as a question of governance. His inability to win key components of a winning Democratic coalition remain very worrisome. He remains a DLC style political triangulator if not a policy triangulator. The success of Obama remains to be seen and may never be seen tested this year on a general election stage."

Moulitsas, on the other hand, thinks Obama is a better bet: "Obama is the far stronger national candidate. He respects the entire country, not just a select few 'pre-approved' and 'sanctioned' Clinton states. An assertion proven by the last SUSA poll, which proved not just a clearer path to the White House for Obama, but showed that he runs tighter even in states he loses. That matters at the presidential level, forcing Republicans to spend meager resources defending supposedly safe territory. And it matters at the state level, making it easier for federal and state candidates to overcome the disadvantages at the top of the ticket. [...] That's why I've become an enthusiastic Obama supporter after being detached for most of this race. Because I'm looking to the candidate who is building a national party, not the one that continues to disrespect most of it."

David Sirota also favors Obama: "The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's 'electability' argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election. This rationale makes positively no sense at all...Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006. In fact, looking at what evidence we do have -- general election matchup polls -- we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton."

Open Left's Chris Bowers prefers Obama to HRC, in part, because he prefers Obama's voter coalition to HRC's: "I don't care if Democrats ever make up any ground among Reagan Democrats, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. I'll take that trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Importantly, it feels to me as though we can make that trade if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, but that we will be making the opposite trade if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee. While Clinton's advantage among Latinos and Asians does not make it a perfect match, Obama's primary coalition is far closer to the coalition we need for an expanding future of the Democratic Party, while Clinton's primary is a lot more like the coalition we have been chasing after for the past twenty-five years or so."

DEM FIELD II: What's Wrong With A Protracted Primary Battle?

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I tend to take a rather optimistic view of the potential impact of a somewhat protracted battle for the nomination on the Democratic Party and our chances in the fall. [...] As a result of our candidates' vying for what looks like will ultimately be every single state (plus Puerto Rico and Guam,) we are seeing unprecedented organization, party registration and participation on the part of longtime and new Democrats all over this country. The importance of this for the fall can not be underestimated. This is the 50-state strategy at work."

MyDD's J Ro: "I fall into the pro-democracy camp. I think it's good that more people get to participate in the process. Indeed, they've responded to that opportunity with enthusiasm -- turnout numbers are off the charts. I feel good about the primary process continuing -- even though personally I'm getting sick of the media coverage. However, I'm not OK with this thing going until the convention. If history is our guide, we'll be at a distinct disadvantage if we don't have a nominee by the time the party convenes this summer."

Daily Kos' BarbinMD doesn't think the race is going to the convention: "Attention MSNBC: [...] Obama remains ahead in the pledged delegate count by approximately 100 delegates...The only way Hillary will be able to overcome that deficit is if Obama falls victim to the old, 'found in bed with a live boy or a dead woman.' So please, get over your dream of an epic battle to the convention and report the facts."

CLINTON: To Praise McCain And Bury Obama

Liberal bloggers continue to slam HRC for her claim that John McCain is "certainly" qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, whereas the jury's still out on Obama:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "It is rather remarkable that Hillary Clinton believes that John McCain is capable of leading the military. John McCain [is] a crazy angry old man whose record suggests he seeks war pretty much all the time. [...] What is wrong with Hillary Clinton that she thinks this man is capable of having his hand near the nuclear football?"
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "Clinton repeatedly refers to [George W.] Bush's legacy as a 'failed presidency.' She calls the president's decision to keep troops in Iraq 'the height of irresponsibility.' And yet, a man who wholeheartedly embraces both the policies of that 'failed presidency' and the irresponsible idea of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years receives Clinton's stamp of approval."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "[Hillary] thinks McCain is commander in chief material and he voted for the war in Iraq. Given Hillary's imaginary standard for Commander-in-Chief, George Bush would probably make the cut too -- so would Joe Lieberman. So Democrats have a simple choice: Do you want another commander in chief whose 'experience' channels George W. Bush on Iraq and Iran? If so, then vote for Hillary or McCain and buy your kids some kevlar. As Clinton has made clear repeatedly over the past week, she and McCain are interchangeable."
• dday: "It's ridiculous to have Hillary Clinton continue to praise John McCain and the lifetime of experience he'll being to the White House, reinforcing that only Republicans can steer the national security ship."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that [HRC] actually believes that Barack Obama cannot 'cross the commander-in-chief threshold.' One of the most important jobs a President has is to defend the country. If she thinks that Barack Obama is not qualified to do that job, then she should not support him over anyone who can. Specifically, she should support McCain over Obama."
• Moulitsas: "Hillary sure does love McCain."

Big Tent Democrat pushes back, arguing that Obama is equally guilty of deploying right-wing frames: "I deplore adopting GOP talking points, as Obama did regarding Hillary Clinton's character and honesty and her health care plan, when he went Harry and Louise. I deplore when he disses Dems to ingratiate himself with Republicans. I deplore Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama as not being ready to be Commander in Chief as compared to John McCain. It bothers me and pushes me to be against her. But I am no fool and realize that until more people deplore these tactics FROM BOTH CANDIDATES, and pols pay a POLITICAL price, it will not change."

CLINTON II: What Experience?

A Chicago Tribune article dissecting HRC's claims about her foreign policy experience has spurred a number of liberal bloggers to join in the criticism:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "Let's get real and admit that Hillary Clinton is getting the free ride of all free rides on her repeated invocations of foreign policy experience. As part of her foreign policy experience Clinton claims 'I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.' [...] These are the sorts of puffed up claims that get other candidates held up to mockery and derision. But Clinton is using them as cudgels in her effort to portray Obama as a lightweight with no experience dealing with foreign policy crises. And basically she's getting a pass."

hilzoy: "I think Clinton did good and laudable work meeting with various people in Northern Ireland. I commend her for it. But she is claiming that having meetings with peace activists, 'taking an intelligent interest in the issues', and contributing to the 'mood music', without actually taking part in any negotiations, constitutes preparation for taking that 3am phone call. And that is 'a wee bit silly.'"

Oliver Willis: "Sen. Clinton continues to falsely claim that she has had serious experience on foreign policy matters, in order to contrast herself with Barack Obama. As part of that claim of 35 years of experience, she lumps in her years as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the US. Neither position is even remotely close to providing one with executive presidential level experience, and most of the functions of that position are even more ceremonial than the traditional vice-presidential role."

OBAMA: Getting Slapped Around?

Several liberal bloggers believe that the Obama campaign needs to step up its attacks on HRC:

Marshall: "Late Tuesday night I wrote that the upshot of the March 4th contests was that Clinton had beaten Obama up a bit and he hadn't responded. She'd not only bloodied up his poll numbers a bit by throwing all sorts of stuff at him. She also showed that it wasn't at all clear that Obama was enough of a fighter to stand up to this stuff or get back in her face. [...] But since then she's just been slapping this guy around like crazy. She's on the offense every day, dictating the terms of the discussion and getting results. [...] The Obama folks can either withdraw to a world where the 'new politics' reigns or focus on the fact that here in the real world there are two 'old politics' practitioners standing between him and the presidency and he needs to decide how he's going to deal with that fact."

Ezra Klein: "[The Obama campaign has] never really been comfortable on the offense. They're good at counterpunching on policy questions, but seem unable to really throw themselves into an attack. For now, lots of his supporters are responding to this, basically, with a 'shame on you, Hillary Clinton,' approach. They're pissed that Clinton is attacking their guy like this. But McCain won't care about the shaming. And Obama needs to actually score some hits. Not elegantly delivered one liners, or wry takes on the Clinton camp's cynicism. He needs to make Hillary Clinton look like an unacceptable nominee. And with $55 million in the bank, Clinton's history, and an army of ready volunteers, ad makers, and surrogates, he's certainly got the tools. The question is whether he's got the will."

MCCAIN: It's Time To Get On Board, Conservatives

Conservative bloggers are pushing back against L. Brent Bozell's Washington Post op-ed, in which Bozell warns that "real conservatives" may not vote for McCain:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Bozell's fundamental point is correct; John McCain should not -- and cannot -- take conservatives for granted -- and expect to be elected president. But his column comes on the heels of McCain's CPAC speech last month, as well as his speech to the conservative Council for National Policy (CNP) -- just this weekend. Clearly, McCain is making an effort to reach out to conservatives -- and that should be encouraged -- not punished. Why Bozell chose this particular time to write in the Washington Post that the man the GOP has nominated to be president is, 'the one who arguably least qualifies as a Reagan conservative,' is beyond me. This is the sort of argument that would have been better made before McCain secured the nomination."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's understandable that conservatives would attempt to leverage their power (and to overstate its extent) by making threats and demands on candidate McCain. But McCain can't win the presidency with conservative support alone, no matter how ardent. McCain surely is mindful of that fact, and conservatives should be too."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I have zero patience with conservatives who try to impose some kind of purity test on John McCain. [...] If there are conservatives who sincerely believe that it makes little difference whether the Executive Branch is run by John McCain or Barack Obama, they are entitled to sit out the election. And if they're going to sit it out, I'd appreciate it if they would sit it out entirely; in other words, stop attacking McCain for his 'impurities.'"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator McCain understands the stakes and believes in winning the war. No matter the number or intensity of the other disagreements he has with conservatives, this ought to be enough to bring the base on board. If it isn't, then I am with John [Hinderaker]: Sit it out. Entirely."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Happened To Iowa & New Hampshire Choosing The Nominee?

Ezra Klein:

"Like all right-thinking people, I used to lament the power exerted by Iowa and New Hampshire. Who made them king, I snarked? How come they get to decide all this, I whined? Why shouldn't everyone get a voice, I lamented?

Well, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Maybe a single national primary day would be better, but this endless process is the pits. [...] A long process gives each side more time to marinate in their opinions, more hours spent in their own echo chambers, more election nights to feel elation and disappointment, more slips and slights and insults and grievances to chalk on to the final tally and conclude that the candidate they don't support isn't merely their second choice, but a, well, monster whose nomination would be an unmitigated catastrophe that will forever drive them from political participation. And I don't blame them. There's simply too much tribal emotion being sustained for too long for it to go any other way.

But I do want to say, to Iowa and New Hampshire, I'm sorry. Please, come back. We took you for granted. We need you. We just didn't know how much. Please save us from ourselves."

LEST WE FORGET: Relationship Tragically Enters Going-To-Bathroom-With-Door-Open Stage

From The Onion:

"SCHAUMBURG, IL -- Tragedy struck an otherwise ideal love affair between Frank Langford, 31, and Amy Diamond, 28, Monday, when Diamond used the toilet directly in front of her beloved for the first time. 'Deep down, I knew this awful development was inevitable, but it still hurts to see the black day finally come,' Langford said. 'The most crushing part is that I didn't even mind that much. After all, I stopped bothering to suck in my gut around her months ago.' Although it only began two years ago, the couple's relationship has already experienced such cataclysmic events as the no-longer-hiding-morning-breath stage and the slapping-each-other-on-the-ass-in-an-entirely-nonsexual-manner stage, and is now rapidly approaching the final indignity of the actual-love-based-on-mutual-understanding-and-respect stage."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:05 PM

March 07, 2008

3/7: A Fine Line

Hillary Clinton has had a rough few days in the liberal blogosphere. The netroots are angry that she has repeatedly suggested that John McCain is more fit to be Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama. While most of the leading liberal bloggers personally like HRC and will strongly support her should she win the nomination, they believe that she is crossing a line by comparing Obama's qualifications unfavorably to McCain's. Markos Moulitsas has stated that his primary goal is "electoral victory," and to the extent that HRC undermines Obama's chances of winning the Presidency (should he become the nominee), then her goals are no longer aligned with those of the netroots. As MyDD's Todd Beeton writes, "There are ways to responsibly make the case that you're more prepared/experienced/insert adjective here to be president. This isn't one of them."

Conservative bloggers, of course, are delighted by the comparisons that HRC is drawing between Obama and McCain. RedState's Mark Kilmer writes: "Hillary, keep talking. PLEASE keep talking."

DEM FIELD: Electability, Shmectability

Moulitsas looks at SurveyUSA polling showing Obama defeating McCain 280-258 in electoral votes and HRC defeating McCain 276-262. Moulitsas concludes: "Obama does expand the map (what Mark Warner used to claim he'd be able to do as a 'map changer'), and puts more pressure across the board on McCain."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, thinks HRC is a stronger general election candidate than Obama: "Are super-delegates are going to be swayed to vote for a candidate that loses the trifecta of PA/MI/FL, but points to a delegate lead due to wins in Republican states like a caucus like WY and a primary in MS? I doubt it."

Open Left's Chris Bowers disputes Armstrong's logic: "There are other ways to win outside of the 2000 and 2004 paradigm. To insist that there is no way to break out of the electoral maps of recent elections is not only depressing fatalistic about Democratic chances, but it actually reinforces the Obama campaign's assertion about Clinton not being able to break out of the political arguments of the past. A new map is clearly possible, as long as we put the effort into actually running a 50-state campaign."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis also disagrees with Armstrong, but for different reasons: "The notion that Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) loses a state to another Dem challenger in a primary, and therefore they will lose that state to John McCain in the general election, is based on some pretty faulty logic. It assumes that all of those Democratic voters who voted for the non-Obama Democrat will now vote for McCain in the fall because they can't have Hillary (or will vote for McCain in the fall if they can't have Obama). Why is it not possible, and highly likely I would argue, that the overwhelming majority of Democrats (and Independents) are going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the primary AND the fall general election regardless of whether that candidate is Hillary, Obama, or Mickey Mouse? I know I will."

DEM FIELD II: Michigan & Florida, Take Two

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the prospect of re-votes in MI and FL:

Open Left's Mike Lux: "What we need right now is not for people to dig in and be stubborn, but to work out a deal that is fair to everybody. Howard [Dean], if that means a do-over with the DNC paying for part of the costs, that's okay. If that means penalizing the states' part of their delegation, like the GOP did, that's okay too. If it means organizing caucuses, and then having part of the delegation coming from the primary vote and part coming from caucuses, that's okay, too. The point is, there are a lot of ways to solve this."

Bowers: "I think seating Florida's delegation as is (105 Clinton, 67 Obama, 13 Edwards) and holding a new Michigan caucus (with 128 pledged delegates at stake) would be an acceptable compromise...Clinton's advantages from the lack of campaigning in Florida would be cancelled out by Obama's advantage in caucuses. Hold the caucus on Saturday, June 7th, the same day as Puerto Rico, and just be done with the whole thing. This way, we can avoid the credentials committee, and probably have a nominee by June 8th, at the latest."

Beeton likes the idea of a mail-in vote in FL and a caucus in MI: "If these two scenarios do come to pass, it seems to me that it would represent the fairest of all results. Not only would the voters of two key states be represented at the convention in Denver and in a way that has no taint, but it would also split the methods by which the contests are run, evening the score, if you will since on its face, a big state primary would be more likely to favor Clinton while a caucus generally favors Obama."

DEM FIELD III: Schadenfreude On The Right

Conservative bloggers are convinced that McCain will benefit from the increasingly nasty HRC-Obama battle:

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The two [Dem candidates] are airing all sorts of things that would be hard for McCain to dredge up and he probably would not, but once out, his campaign can refer to something that is already out in the public domain."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Obama] obviously has to get tougher and it's happening. The Politics of Hope may now give way to The Politics of the Usual. He may take down Hillary Clinton in the process and Democratic partisans loyal to him will probably stay loyal, but it will be interesting indeed to see how independents react to negative campaigning from Barack Obama once the general election draws closer."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Clinton's have made a decision to destroy Barack Obama because that is what is necessary to achieve power. It is already an eye-opener for the Dems to see the politics of personal destruction unleashed on St. Obama. Popping him on to the ticket in Denver won't heal all the wounds already and soon-to-be-inflicted."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "If [HRC's] resurgence continues, Obama's spinmeisters and lawyers are going to have their work cut out for them in May and June. [...] Forget Bush v. Gore. It'll be Clinton vs. Obama."

CLINTON: Hillary And Johnny, Sittin' In A Tree

Liberal bloggers are slamming HRC for a statement she made yesterday, when she once again compared Obama unfavorably to McCain:

"'...I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,' the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

'I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,' she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a 'distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,' Clinton said, 'Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.'"

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "A leading Democratic candidate shouldn't keep praising the leading Republican candidate in order to attack a fellow Dem. This is not only divisive; it helps the other team. If Clinton wants to argue that she's better qualified on national security issues, great, make the case. But this is the worst possible way of making the argument."


• Bowers: "To imply to Democratic voters 'it's OK to vote for me, because I'll pick Obama as VP,' and then to turn around and imply that 'Obama is not qualified to be President, but John McCain is,' is both contradictory, self-defeating, and, shall we say, not entirely forthcoming. Maybe someone should ask Clinton why she would pick a Vice-President who she thinks is not qualified to become President. Or, maybe someone should ask her why she wouldn't pick McCain as her Vice-President, since she thinks he is so well-qualified on national security issues."


• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Should we conclude that the Clinton campaign believes their best strategy for capturing the nomination is to convince the superdelegates/party leaders they must choose her because she's prepared to make it impossible for Senator Obama to beat John McCain?"


• TPM's Josh Marshall: "A lot of people are seeing red that Hillary's so aggressively pushing the Republican nominee's credentials to be president. And I can see their point. But I'm more surprised that she's pushing an argument she doesn't need to make and frankly can't make credibly."


• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "It's good to know that [HRC] won't let little things like jokes about her daughter being an ugly bastard keep her from kissing McCain's ass."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, love HRC's remarks:

• RedState's streiff: "I've watched a few presidential primaries play out, but I have to say this is the first one in which I've heard one candidate unfavorably compare their primary opponent's qualifications to those of their general election opponent. It is a counterintuitive strategy, at least, on the part of Hillary!"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Amen, Hillary, amen. We on the right salute your clear-eyed assessment of the candidates."

CLINTON II: With So Much Drama In The HRC...

Peter Baker and Anne Kornblut's Washington Post article about squabbling among Clinton campaign staffers is generating a lot of discussion among liberal bloggers.

Several netroots bloggers were disappointed to learn that DLC head Bruce Reed gave HRC her "change you can Xerox" debate line:

• Aravosis: "Nice to know that the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic party has the inside track on Hillary's talking points. No wonder it's sounding increasingly like Karl Rove is writing her anti-Obama talking points."
• Moulitsas: "Clinton has been silent on her leadership role at the DLC, since it's not the sort of thing that people like to trumpet anymore. Reed has been an enthusiastic surrogate for Clinton, but the candidates don't always get to choose their supporters. (Al Wynn, anyone?) But debate prep? Team Clinton has Team DLC firmly embedded in the campaign."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks Moulitsas is being unfair to HRC: "Having the DLC in the Big Democratic Tent is fine by me. I certainly would not want either candidate to cast out the DLC. I actually worry more about the DLC's Third Way Unity Schtick political advice. As [DLC founder Al] From says, there is a very close political tactics connection between Obama and the DLC. It is what I complain about constantly. Some others used to complain about too. Not anymore apparently."

Liberal bloggers also discussed Clinton staffers' hostility toward campaign strategist Mark Penn:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks HRC's devotion to the unpopular Penn reveals her true political views: "Even though everyone on earth -- including [HRC's] own staff and supporters -- wants her to ditch this guy, she won't do it. Because Penn's style of political skittishness is, fundamentally, what she and her husband think the lessons of the past few decades support. The strength of Barack Obama's campaign has forced her to shift to the left, but you can always tell that her campaign's at its most comfortable attacking from the right -- altering photographs of Obama, calling diplomacy 'naive,' getting 'tough' on Iran, warning that terrorists will devour your children unless you elect the longest-serving Washington hack available, singing John McCain's praises, etc."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay thinks the campaign's internal strife reflects poorly on HRC's leadership skills: "Seriously, when it comes to the Clintons and their top advisers, the drama never ends. And, while the Post article is fascinating (as are this one and this one, too), it's actually disturbing how many of her staffers run to the media to air the campaign's dirty laundry. [...] She keeps telling us she's a leader, but if this is how she leads, we're in trouble. It's no way to run a campaign, but it's definitely no way to run a country."

CLINTON III: Who Loves The '90s?

HRC's online critics are unsympathetic to her campaign's charge that the Obama campaign is "imitating Ken Starr" by calling on her to release her tax returns:

Yglesias: "Barack Obama's campaign wants Bill and Hillary Clinton to release their tax returns. The Clinton campaign responds by denouncing 'Ken Starr' tactics. But this is the point, isn't it? Clinton's people want to say we need a 'vetted' candidate, so we need a vetted candidate. It's not as if the Republicans have forgotten Ken Starr tactics, nor is it as if examining potential financial conflicts of interest is some kind of outlandish new development in dirty politics."

Moulitsas: "This 'vetting' of the Clintons, now that they've opened that door, isn't going well for them. So they're overreacting."

Aravosis: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Especially after it was Hillary who made 'Mr. Lazio, release those tax returns' a key part of her 2000 Senate campaign against Republican Rick Lazio."

Meanwhile, TPM's Greg Sargent wonders: "[It's] worth asking whether this gambit is about reinforcing Hillary's bond with female voters by invoking Hillary's severe public humiliation at the hands of her husband and a prurient GOP and media."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Money Gap

Pejman Yousefzadeh disputes the claim that the Dem nominee will have a significant financial edge over McCain:

"Part of the political narrative this campaign season has been the argument that the vast sums of money raised by the remaining Presidential candidates is indicative of the enthusiasm Democrats feel for the upcoming election cycle. I suppose that there is some truth to that claim but I find it a little bit harder to believe -- especially after reading this -- that Republicans suffer from a lack of enthusiasm so pronounced as to make them uncompetitive in the election. [...]

The ability Republicans have to amass cash -- and President [George W.] Bush and Vice President [Dick] Cheney will have their roles in amassing a whole lot more -- means that they will be able to coordinate with and assist John McCain's candidacy quite effectively.

To be sure, Democrats will catch up when their party selects a nominee. But that could take a while, from what I hear. And by the time it happens, any increase in the party's coffers may be offset by the decrease in the coffers of the eventual nominee since gobs of money doubtlessly had to be spent to defeat the eventual nominee's remaining rival."

LEST WE FORGET: Tough Choices

Stephen Colbert tries to get ex-Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich to endorse either HRC or Obama (h/t Nicole Belle):

Colbert: Are you endorsing Hillary Clinton?
Reich: No, I decided not to endorse this round.
Colbert: So, you're endorsing Barack Obama?
Reich: No, I'm not going to endorse anybody. [...]
Colbert: Okay, let me put it this way: if we were at a restaurant together and the waiter brought around the dessert cart, and the choice was ladyfingers or Black Forest cake, which way do you think you'd lean?
Reich: Quite seriously, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make a great president.
Colbert: Let me put this a different way. If I were a waiter and I were to offer you two different slices of pizza, and one was half-Hawaiian and you weren't entirely sure what it was going to taste like. And the other was plain with cheese and had been under a heat lamp for 35 years, I mean, it had seen everything. Which would you go for?
Reich: I don't think I'd be terribly excited about either of those slices.
Colbert: Which movie would you rent? 'Big Momma's House' or 'Medea's Family Reunion'? Be careful, they are both about strong women who are actually black men.
Reich: Um, gosh. I think I'd try both of them out."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:45 PM

March 06, 2008

3/6: It's Hard Out Here For A Dem

Liberal bloggers continue to discuss whether or not the never-ending Dem primary race will hurt the party's prospects in November. As we mentioned yesterday, some bloggers are worried that John McCain is going to get a "free pass" for the next few months while the blogosphere and the MSM focus on the increasingly contentious battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Others think that the current scenario could actually help the Dems by denying the GOP a specific target at whom to concentrate their fire. If HRC gets another solid win in PA (which would probably guarantee that the Dem race goes all the way to the convention), will the netroots' worries increase?

DEM FIELD: You Thought This Was Gonna Be Easy?

Several liberal bloggers are lamenting the fact that the Dem race will remain unresolved for the near future:

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Oh, well, I guess that if we win in November, it will be the hard way. [...] I still think we can win the Presidential race this fall, as McCain has some real weaknesses and a lot of dynamics are playing in our favor, but it's going to be really complicated and difficult. [...] Congratulations to the traditional media. You've given Barack a pretty good ride overall, but when you realized this cash cow, ratings-spiking, newspaper-selling race might end, you turned on him with a vengeance. You had a good night last night, as our race keeps going, and you got to announce your hero McCain as the official GOP nominee all on the same night. You've got to be feeling happy this morning."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Does the prospect of a long, drawn-out contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spell doom for the eventual nominee? A lot of people have a sinking feeling that it does. [...] There'll be nobody effectively pressing the media with anti-McCain talking points. It also means that Clinton will continue re-enforcing whatever good lines of attack McCain comes up with against Obama, and if McCain starts delivering good anti-Clinton lines, Obama will probably start re-enforcing those, too. This kind of dynamic hardly guarantees defeat in November, but it's hard to see how it helps."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I have to say, I really wanted it to be over last night. Not that Hillary Clinton has any obligation to give up, but because people are so emotionally wound up in the My Candidate Is Awesome/Your Candidate Sucks mode that John McCain is getting a free pass. People are so busy hurling pies at each other, being obdurate and intolerant and irrational that it makes McCain looks statesmanlike and above it all in comparison. And that is a big problem."

DEM FIELD II: Enough With The Doom And Gloom

Other liberal bloggers are trying to look on the bright side:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I agree with Stoller, that one upside to this campaign going on is that 'Obama will now finally have to address the arguments that will come from the Republicans.' [...] I understand the worries about the primary getting ugly, clearly, but as ugly as it's gotten, there's another big upside to this campaign continuing on. [...] In state after state our candidates campaign in, they are building organizations and focusing on issues, which, I agree with kos, can only help us long term. So, to all those who wish Hillary would drop out, I say stop yer belly-aching and focus on winning the remaining contests for your candidate. If he really is the choice of the majority of Democratic primary voters then winning shouldn't be a problem."

Digby: "There is no shortage of money, both candidates provide some fascination to the media and until the party decides, they will remain moving targets for the Republicans. After all, they can't settle on a narrative until one of the candidates is chosen. One of the upsides of the two candidates we have is that while they are very similar on policy, traditional GOP attacks will have to be tailored differently. If McCain is forced to campaign against them on the issues, which is what they have in common, he loses."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Hillary Clinton is not destroying Barack Obama, blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins, the party is still in good shape, Republican members of Congress are quitting in droves, we're raising trainloads of money, and John McCain continues to be a putz. Let's stop the hyperventilating, OK?"

DEM FIELD III: Grab The Popcorn!

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are delighting in the length and the increasingly personal tone of the Dem contest:

NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "My forecast for the next six months: A long, divisive battle for the Democratic nomination that helps John McCain."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If the Democrats blow this election, as they now seem hellbent on doing, they really ought to consider disbanding the party. Some liberal blogger or reporter from the Nation should investigate whether the Democratic leaders are all on the payroll of the vast right-wing conspiracy."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "How incredible is it that [George W.] Bush and McCain are having a love-fest at the White House, and Democrats are at each others throats in an increasingly bitter contest that involves the hot buttons of race and gender?"

RedState's Mark Kilmer: "The Democrats are doing the internecine warfare thaang. They're spending money, bringing up issues, and all for every charge there will be a countercharge. (A tit for a tat, rat-a-tat-a-tat.) No tax returns from Hillary, and no [Tony] Rezco answers from Barry. [...] 'Tis a good time to have a straight-talking national hero on the top of the ticket."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's not just the fact that Democrats will spend the next few months going at it that is likely to help John McCain, but the nature of the attacks Clinton and Obama are making against one another that can be used against either of them in the general. Clinton has been hitting Obama on his lack of preparedness (while she acknowledges McCain's 'lifetime of experience'), on Tony Rezko, and generally being all words and no substance. Meanwhile Obama strategist David Axelrod declared today, 'The vetting of Hillary Clinton is just going to start.' [...] What is important is that all of these attacks involve matters of experience and character -- qualities that can actually have an effect on swing voters. By contrast, during the Republican primaries, the other candidates didn't go after McCain for being dishonest or unprepared to be president, but for not being conservative enough."

DEM FIELD IV: It Takes Two, Baby

After HRC hinted at the possibility of sharing the Dem presidential ticket with Obama, liberal bloggers are discussing whether or not such a ticket would work:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "We might be getting to the point where political considerations of party unity might force both Clinton and Obama onto the ticket for the fall. [...] Then again, after both candidates have decried the other's judgment and / or ability to handle national emergencies and major foreign policy decisions, does an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket make sense anymore? [...] One thing I will say is if Clinton wants to imply that she will pick Obama to be Vice-President, she should stop implying that Obama couldn't handle a national emergency. That is just disingenuous, since usually vice-Presidents become presidents in the case of a national emergency. If Clinton really wants Obama to be her VP, then she stop offering reasons why he would not be a good VP."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "The problem with a joint ticket is that no one will want to be number two."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks a joint ticket is inevitable: "After [Tuesday] night, I believe it is a virtual certainty that the ticket will be Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama."

CLINTON: Mutual Assured Destruction

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer HRC for repeatedly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama:

Drum: "This really is fratricidal in a way that's not excusable. [...] Hillary needs to knock this crap off. It's disgraceful."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The more I consider this, the more frustrating it becomes. For one thing, Dems, no matter how competitive the primary, should simply refrain from suggesting the Republican candidate is preferable. We're supposed to be on the same team. For another, Clinton's message won't even benefit her should she win the Democratic nomination. The more she praises McCain's background, and makes experience the centerpiece of the campaign, the harder it will be for her in the general election -- because McCain has more experience than she does."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee? And what the hell does our party plan to do on stopping this train wreck? She can't win, it's over, she doesn't have the delegates and can't get the delegates. She's hoping she can destroy Obama and step in after he's toast. And if she's wrong, she'll simply leave Obama destroyed for the general election campaign against McCain, the guy she has now said four times is more qualified to be president than our presumptive nominee."

CLINTON II: Having Fun With Photoshop?

Several prominent liberal bloggers are accusing the Clinton campaign of manipulating video footage of Obama in one of their TV ads, making the IL senator's skin look darker and widening his nose:

Moulitsas compares the two images of Obama and writes: "As you can see, the campaign ad has darkened Obama's skin tone, while stretching the video horizontally to give Obama a wider nose. [...] Classy outfit, those guys."

In a later post, Moulitsas addresses claims that the changes made to Obama's image were accidental: "Remember the 'RATS' ad used against [Al] Gore in 2000? The Bush campaign was mocked in its claims of ignorance because ad makers pore over every detail of their ads before releasing them for broadcast. There was a concerted effort by Clinton's ad people to make Obama look darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose. The evidence is indisputable."

Aravosis: "You'll recall that we wrote yesterday about how Hillary had blackened Barack Obama's face in a new campaign attack ad. Well, Markos found that that's not all they did. They also stretched the width of Obama's face, making his nose wider and more stereotypically African-American looking. Oh yeah, and then they lied about it, and got caught."

Interestingly, conservative bloggers are coming to the Clinton camp's defense:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Even if you believe Hillary would stoop to this sort of race-baiting, does anyone think the benefit she'd gain from it would outstrip the cost? [...] The left's chomping at the bit to demagogue the hell out of the GOP on all matters racial in the general election, so Hillary will have to do for now."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "The whole thing's just a preview of the race-baiting wonderland we're headed into if Obama's the Democratic nominee. [...] Liberals have been demagoguing race for so long, they can't tell the difference between real racism and coded messages that are just figments of their fevered, guilty imaginations."
• little green footballs' Charles Johnson: "What I see in these pictures is the typical color alteration that happens from transferring and copying video segments, which also accounts for the aspect ratio changes. [...] It's another nutroots mass delusion."

OBAMA: Now Tell Me, How Nasty Can You Get?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing how Obama can hit back at HRC:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There is one upside to this outcome, and that is that Obama will now finally have to address the arguments that will come from the Republicans. [...] I have no idea if [HRC's 3 AM] ad worked, and I'm not going to pretend any great insight. But if it did, and Obama's campaign has the polling data to know if it did, they should come up with a response beyond the one emphasizing his no vote on Iraq. And that response should be negative, and probably point out that Clinton didn't even read the NIE before deciding to send troops into Iraq, and now is acting like she didn't vote for the war. That kind of argument, that hawks are irresponsible, will work against Clinton and McCain."

Benen: "I have to admit, [Obama's recent criticism of HRC] seems rather mild as campaign attacks go. In fact, I'd argue that these 'contrasts' aren't nearly as harsh as Clinton's 'kitchen-sink' strategy used so effectively over the last week or so. If this is as far as Obama is prepared to go, he'll be able to argue with a straight face that he's keeping a classy campaign, but there are a couple of angles to consider: a) if voters yesterday responded to real negative campaigning, is Obama being aggressive enough? and b) is this only the first stage in a series of ever-escalating criticisms that will grow more intense in the coming weeks? I guess we'll find out soon enough."

OBAMA II: Win Pennsylvania, Or We're Headed To A Brokered Convention

Bowers sees only one way to save the Dem party from disaster: "Obama needs to win Pennsylvania. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, he will go on to win Indiana and North Carolina, giving him the winning streak he needs for general election momentum. Further, given that Pennsylvania is probably even more demographically favorable to Clinton than Ohio (an older population and a closed primary), it will demonstrate great improvement on his party, and serve as a knockout blow (especially if he has drawn even on superdelegates by that point). Yet further, it will have allowed him to build a truly national infrastructure, and leave him plenty of time for him and other Democrats to press our general election advantages against McCain and Republicans. However, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, we could be in a world of hurt where the nominee stumbles home to the nomination and where our general election advantages do not have enough time to assert themselves."

Yglesias agrees: "Basically, Pennsylvania is like Ohio. The differences -- more old people, fewer black people, more Hispanics -- mostly cut in Clinton's favor, with only the larger number of college graduates helping Obama. The bad news for Obama, basically, is that he needs to fight a big, protracted battle in a state that's very demographically unfavorable to him. The good news for Obama is that given how Clinton-friendly the state and, and the fact that Clinton can't overtake him in the delegate lead anyway, if he does manage to beat her here she'll have no excuses left to stay in the race."

MCCAIN: The Real Media Darling?

Liberal bloggers continue to complain that political journalists are biased in favor of McCain:

Daily Kos' Devilstower: "Sure, it would be nice if the press was detached and objective, but the truth is that all candidates don't get equal treatment in the media. The press is only human. When you stick them on a bus for weeks (or a bathroom for five hours) they're bound to develop attachments and dislikes. They create story lines for the candidates; form their own little narratives full of good guys and bad guys. Once they've decided which candidate is their champion, it's hard to get them to change. So good luck getting them to seriously go after John McCain."

Digby: "In case anyone wonders why the press has been so gleefully building up and then tearing down Democratic candidates this season, this might just be a hint. McCain media manlove knows no bounds."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "Barack Obama got seriously tripped up for apparently not sufficiently denouncing an 'endorsement' he didn't solicit from someone he has no connection with. John McCain solicited the endorsement of a complete nut who's got this long history of slurs against the Catholic Church and a lot else. McCain's sticking with Hagee and he's getting a complete pass. [...] It's pretty amazing what it takes to create a problem for John McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe Mark Penn's To Blame

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"It's worth noting that nothing about [Tuesday]'s results necessarily vindicates the Clinton campaign's strategy of effectively conceding most the states between Super Tuesday and Texas, and allowing Obama to run up huge margins, both in votes and delegates, in nearly all of them. It isn't as if the firewall strategy allowed her to barely stave off an Obama surge that might have succeeded if she'd spread her time and resources around. The Obama surge did succeed, in Texas at least, thanks to his momentum out of the Mid-Atlantic: He swamped her firewall and pulled into the lead, and it appears that she only regained the upper hand thanks to some hard-edged last-minute campaigning. If she could have narrowed his margins in states like Virginia and Wisconsin, she might not have lost the lead in Texas in the first place -- and more importantly, she'd have higher delegate and vote totals to carry into the looming argument over whose 'moral claim' on the nomination is the stronger one."

LEST WE FORGET: Monopoly: The Movie

Cracked's Ross Wolinsky thinks the upcoming movie based on the board game "Monopoly" is a bad idea:

"Aside from Rich Uncle Pennybags and the cop who says 'GO TO JAIL,' Monopoly's entire cast of characters (with the exception of the dog) is a bunch of inanimate pewter objects. How do you make a board game out of that? Will it document the thrilling rise to power of Shoe, whose hotel empire comes to dominate everything from Kentucky Avenue to Marvin Gardens? Will there be a subplot about Thimble and Wheelbarrow who are down on their luck, squatting in a condemned building on Baltic Avenue, where they can see the gleaming jewels of the Community Chest just barely out of arms reach? Maybe they'll go the serious route and make it a prestige flick about the actual history of Monopoly and Parker Brothers. It could be a gripping cautionary tale of hubris and lost humanity. They could call it There Will Be Board Games."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:39 PM

March 05, 2008

3/5: The Firewall Holds!

Now that it looks like Hillary Clinton's victories in OH, TX, and RI will prolong the Dem race for at least seven more weeks, liberal bloggers are debating whether or not this is a good thing for the party. Many bloggers are worried that an increasingly nasty battle between HRC and Barack Obama will weaken the eventual Dem nominee and give John McCain a head start on defining his opponents. Others -- including Markos Moulitsas -- don't mind that the Dem race won't be over any time soon. In their view, the HRC-Obama contest will keep McCain out of the headlines and test Obama's ability to withstand attacks (yes, most liberal bloggers still assume that Obama will be the nominee because of his pledged delegate lead).

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are giddy with excitement over the prospect of a protracted HRC-Obama battle. Some are already speculating about a brokered convention. In their eyes, the GOP's chances of holding the White House are looking better by the day.

DEM FIELD: I Have A Bad Feeling About This...

Many liberal bloggers are nervous about the prospect of an increasingly nasty HRC-Obama battle:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[HRC] can't win. But she can ensure that Obama is so bloodied, to use Rush Limbaugh's description of the Clinton strategy, that Obama is damaged goods come the fall. After all, if Hillary can't get the nomination, then nobody should. While I respect the arguments that the lengthy primary process has skyrocketed Democratic turnout and organizing, it's also tearing us and our candidates apart. And get ready for Team Clinton to go even more negative after last night. That means more racism and more made-for-GOP-TV statements about how John McCain is the most experienced candidate for president."

Ezra Klein: "Clinton's victory speech tonight is probably the best I've seen her give. [...] The problem is, at the end of the day, she'll still have to trash the likely nominee, overturn the will of the pledged delegates, and force through a change in the DNC rules to win. Her speech is good, but what it signifies, for the party, is quite dangerous."

The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Would someone please tell [HRC] that she can't win on delegates and this is only going to help the Republicans? Please?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[This race is] gonna get even nastier. I think the most telling rhetorical moment of the night was when, during Clinton's speech, her supporters started chanting 'Yes, She Will,' or something to that effect. Whatever it was, it was directly aimed not just as Barack Obama, but at Barack Obama supporters. I can't remember something like that ever happening before. [...] You could feel their disgust with Obama supporters, which certainly is a sign that Clinton supporters don't care how nasty her campaign might get against Obama. [...] This could get really, really ugly."

Bowers also expects McCain to benefit from the lengthy HRC-Obama race: "I have long argued that whoever has the momentum in the primary campaign will always perform better in the general election. For the next several weeks, neither Clinton nor Obama will have momentum in the primary campaign, but McCain probably will. As our campaign gets nastier and remains somewhat inconclusive, there is a good chance McCain will gain on both Clinton and Obama."

DEM FIELD II: Bring Da Ruckus!

Other liberal bloggers don't mind that the Dem contest will continue for another seven weeks (or longer):

Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "I know many of you worry about the race getting ugly or whatever. I'm looking forward to the coming weeks. For one, Obama may finally have to go negative. I've never seen him do that. He's never had to do that. Second of all, as long as the talking heads are talking about the Democratic race, that's time they're not talking about their 'maverick' friend. And what's the debate about between Obama and Clinton? Health care. Iraq. Jobs. The sort of thing that can only help us long term. Finally, Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from such setbacks. He's had a mostly charmed political life. A little political adversity is important. [...] So I'm cool with [HRC] continuing on. I certainly won't be calling for her to quit."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "What we've seen over the last week is nothing compared to what Barack Obama would face this fall if he hangs on and wins the nomination. So I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? By this I don't mean that he's got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill [Clinton]'s business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they're good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message. But he's got to show he can take this back to Hillary and not get bloodied and battered when an opponent decides to lower the boom."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The hot topic of conversation right now is the proposition that a long, drawn-out Democratic primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House. So for the good of the country, Hillary should withdraw. [...] I say: chill out. Like a lot of people, I'm not very happy about the direction the Democratic campaign has taken, but the idea that it's going to wreck the eventual winner's chances in the fall seems pretty far fetched. It takes more than a few nasty exchanges to do that. And who knows? By keeping Dems in the spotlight, it might even help them. Stranger things have happened."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Is the continuation of this race a bad thing? Not necessarily. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have answered all the questions a nominee must answer before we can feel confident of his or her chances in November. Barack Obama has yet to show he can win a big key contested state that we will need in November. [...] And Hillary Clinton has not shown any ability to compete in the wine class track of voters. And while normally one would never have imagined the Clintons having trouble with African Americans, the stark reality NOW is that this nominating process has weakened Hillary Clinton's appeal with African Americans. This matters. A lot."

DEM FIELD III: Getting Better All The Time

Conservative bloggers are thrilled that HRC and Obama will continue to battle it out for the Dem nod:

Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "I must say, it's utterly delightful for Republicans to watch Democrats destroy the best chance they've had to take the White House in years. [...] While Clinton and Obama are busy trying to figure out how to take each other out through the rest of the spring, GOP nominee John McCain will be mounting a national campaign, raising money and mending fences with the party's conservative base. And, if Republicans are lucky, Hillary's negative attacks on Obama might just provide the cover Republicans need to until November when they can unload on her."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio will only serve to prolong the fight for the Democratic nomination. This will exhaust the candidates, exhaust their resources and make it that much harder for Democrats to eventually unite for the fall campaign. Meanwhile, Republicans will have time to coalesce around John McCain."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[There's] not enough time or delegates [for HRC] to beat Obama fairly. She'll have to cheat to win. Period. [...] The Democrats are now dancing on a cliff unlike any they have been on since 1968 when the demands for new voices and change ran straight into the entrenched interests of unions and special interest groups that have long made common cause with the D.C. Dems. The Dems shattered 40 years ago. The sequel may be even more destructive of the left."

CLINTON: And All The Roads We Have To Walk Are Winding

Many liberal bloggers are pointing out that HRC still lags behind Obama in the pledged delegate race:

Marshall: "You have to give Clinton credit. [...] She hung in there, threw everything they had at Obama, and she's pulled this off. She doesn't give up; she doesn't quit. In a day or two, I think those delegate numbers are going to sink in. And her path to the nomination still looks incredibly difficult. But give her her due."

Moulitsas: "A good night for Clinton, she did what she set out to do -- win Texas and Ohio. [...] If she's eaten into Obama's [delegate] lead, then we've got a serious rationale for the race to continue. If Obama wins the delegate count tonight, which is still pretty possible (remarkably, because this primary process is so stupid), then Clinton will have ended her 'good' night without making ground where it actually matters. We'll see."

Aravosis: "It doesn't matter if the media perceives Hillary getting 'momentum' tonight if she doesn't get enough delegates to catch up with Obama. This is a 50-state election. She lost too many other states by too much of a margin to catch up with Obama's delegate total at this late date."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that [HRC's] net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong pushes back against these arguments: "It amazes me how many inaccurate articles and blog posts state that Clinton 'just can't win' the pledged-delegate battle. Well guess what? Neither can Obama! It takes a deep level of self-deception to believe that Obama, or Clinton, having a lead in the overall total of pledged delegates, despite failing to get to the level of the number needed to secure the nomination, [will] secure the nomination. [...] As far as the rules go, there is no indication at all that a pledged delegate lead should mean anything more than a bunch of other quasi-measurements that could be used to secure the nomination via super-delegates."

OBAMA: As Goes Ohio...

Obama's online critics think yesterday's results raise serious questions about his electability:

Armstrong: "Obama has a huge electability problem in [OH]. He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties. Even though he's able to rack up a large number of urban black voters he did terrible among white voters, winning just 34 percent. You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties. [...] And lets not forget that Obama outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin, and had the union help. There's no amount of money or youth organizing that is going to change the dynamics at work against Obama in Ohio in the November general. We'll see in a month, but my guess is that we get about the same map coming out of Pennsylvania. There is not a winning Democratic electoral map which doesn't include either or both Ohio and Pennsylvania."

Big Tent Democrat: "Barack Obama has yet to show he can win a big key contested state that we will need in November. The naysaying ostriches want to pretend this does not matter. Sorry, it does. The heart of Obama's problem is he has not been able to demonstrate an ability to appeal to white women, working class whites, seniors and Latinos. These are key constituencies in November any Democratic nominee must have to win in November. Having some number of Republicans and Independents cross over to vote for you in a primary or caucus is great, but how much of that will be repeatable in November? How much will it matter that you won a primary or caucus in Utah, North Dakota and Idaho?"

MCCAIN: Meet Your GOP Nominee

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Most voters don't pick candidates by reviewing a checklist of issues. Most voters try to size up the candidate's character, temperament and stature, and are willing to vote for candidates across what we ideologues would consider a broad philosophical range. John McCain is, as many have said, a great man and a great American. While I disagree with him on a number of issues, I'm not sorry to see him as our nominee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "If McCain is as competitive with the Dems as the polls now suggest, I won't be sorry either."

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "I haven't been a fan of John McCain's. [...] But with all his faults, he is the only candidate remaining in this race who really understands the stakes in the war on terror, and the only one who's prepared and willing to make the tough decisions that will be required to defeat the Islamofascists."

RedState's Adam C: "Congratulations to Senator McCain on this well-earned victory. It is time to look forward toward November and to unite behind the Senator from Arizona."

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, is still coming to terms with McCain's victory: "It's official. Sigh. McCain is the GOP presidential nominee. Nose plugs, anyone?"

HUCKABEE: Good Night, Sweet Prince

Several conservative bloggers commented on Mike Huckabee's exit from the race:

NRO's Rich Lowry: "[Huckabee]'s a very talented man and has gotten incredibly far. He has a future in the national GOP, especially if he spends the next few years in serious political spadework rather than in rank self-promotion. Congrats to him for out-running all expectations in this race."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I think that Mike Huckabee damaged himself by staying in the race for the last few weeks. [...] With that said, Huckabee ran a strong campaign on a shoestring budget, shook up the party, and emerged as an important -- perhaps now the most prominent -- evangelical political leader. Overall, his campaign has to be seen as a smashing success."

CBN's David Brody: "Why couldn't Huckabee pull it off? [...] Let's start with two words: National Security. Look, he could never convince the GOP establishment, military generals, Evangelical leaders and voters in general that he was 'tough enough' for the job. [...] Another factor that didn't help was how [Mitt] Romney, [Fred] Thompson, Limbaugh and Club for Growth painted him as a tax and spend liberal. It hurt him and Huckabee was frustrated by it. But the biggest frustration may be how Evangelical leaders never got behind Huckabee. James Dobson did but not until it was way too late. The rest of them stood on the sidelines and left Huckabee high and dry. This hurt him."

A few bloggers urged Huckabee to challenge AR Sen. Mark Pryor:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Nothing left to do but run for Senate. See you on the trail, Huck."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Now, what kind of deliberative body might be in danger of tipping overwhelmingly toward the Dems this year and could use a GOP candidate in Arkansas, who would enjoy a job that involves mostly chatting with reporters and giving speeches?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Poisoning The Well?

The Atlantic's James Fallows thinks HRC is trying to win on "Pyrrhic terms":

"In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the 'Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002' line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the 'Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience' part of that sentence? [...]

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of 'experience,' knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience. But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special...If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now. [...]

Obama [has] put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way."

LEST WE FORGET: It's Been Great, And I'm Ready For It To Be Over

Open Left's Mike Lux is tired:

"[This Dem primary]'s been great in so many ways -- history making, energizing, turnout has been through the roof, it's meant the votes of people in most of the country [have] mattered unlike most years, vigorous debate on big issues and how best to make change. It's been really fun, and really good for the party. But I'm beginning to hope it doesn't last much longer.

I feel like we've reached the point where the debate is getting stale and yet also meaner and more damaging all the time, and where if it keeps going on much longer, we'll start having the arguments seem pettier and pettier, about rules and credentials and small-minded attacks about stupid stuff. And we've reached that juncture where it seems better for us to turn our attention to defining McCain rather than carving up each other."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

March 04, 2008

3/4: The Comeback Begins?

The general blogosphere consensus that we described yesterday -- that Hillary Clinton will win Ohio, while Texas remains a toss-up -- has solidified. Furthermore, HRC's momentum in the most recent TX polls has increased the likelihood that she will win the TX popular vote (if not the TX caucus). So, it's looking more and more probable that tonight will be a big night for HRC, and most liberal bloggers now believe that the Dem race will continue until the PA primary on 4/22.

Naturally, conservative bloggers are delighted by this prospect. They continue to direct most of their fire at Barack Obama, hammering the IL senator for his relationship with Tony Rezko, his NAFTA troubles, and his foreign policy experience. Does the righty blogosphere's continued focus on Obama suggest that they still view him as the likely Dem nominee? And will that change if HRC does very well tonight, or will conservatives continue to target Obama almost exclusively?

DEM FIELD: Hillary's Got The Mo

Liberal bloggers are discussing the latest tracking polls, which suggest that HRC has momentum in both OH and TX:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Seems as though there might be new life for the Clinton campaign. She looks good in Ohio, and Texas is now razor-thin, but with slight Clinton momentum. [...] Obama's pledged delegate advantage is unassailable. For Clinton, the goal is to use a win in the Texas primary in order to change the narrative and improve her standing in post-March 4th states. [...] I still think we are headed to Pennsylvania. Clinton will win Ohio, and probably Rhode Island. She also should come close in Texas, and probably declare some sort of victory as a result. I'm getting antsy to take on [John] McCain, but Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be a problem, and setting up a massive Pennsylvania operation wouldn't hurt, either."

Open Left's Matt Stoller also thinks we are headed to PA: "I have no idea what is going to happen, but my general rule of thumb is that the most annoying scenario is also the most likely scenario simply because I enjoy feeling sorry for myself. So Clinton wins Ohio 54-46 and Texas by 51-49, though Obama will take more delegates in Texas because that system is crazy. And then the campaign goes to Pennsylvania."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "If the polls bear out, we seem set for a result that will lead to minor or major crowing from the Clinton camp, with a victory in Ohio seeming very likely and at a least a primary popular vote victory in Texas looking like a distinct possibility. [...] The upshot is that the Clinton campaign may come out of tonight with a major shot in the arm and a round of good press and yet still be in no more realistic a position to win the nomination based on the stubborn tally of delegates."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas believes that "Clinton has gained some ground (or at least stemmed the bleeding) in the last few days," but he still predicts a comfortable win in TX for Obama:

Ohio: Clinton +4

Texas: Obama +12

Rhode Island: Clinton +6

Vermont: Obama +35

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat offers his own predictions: "Clinton by 10 in Ohio. Clinton by 14 in RI. Obama by 30 in Vermont. Obama by 2 in Texas. The first three are fairly conventional. But why do I think Obama wins in Texas? Because [John] Zogby said Clinton would win Texas. Kidding. I'll tell you why. Because I think African American turnout will be through the roof, swamping every other factor in its path. That's the reason."

DEM FIELD II: The View From The Right

Conservative bloggers are delighted by the prospect of HRC and Obama fighting it out for another six weeks:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If HRC staggers BO today, the GOP will be popping corks all night long as the inevitability of a long, drawn out and increasingly bitter fight becomes obvious."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Personally, I just want to see the two of them slug it out all the way through the convention."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "If Hillary wins both Ohio and Texas and stays in the race, the Democrats keep bludgeoning each other for another few months. If Obama knocks her out of the race tonight, the Clinton era is over. Sounds like a win win to me."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers are joining Rush Limbaugh in urging TX GOPers to vote for HRC:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[HRC] leads in two of the last three polls and trails by a solitary point in the other. This thing is winnable, baby. All we have to do is want it enough. Exit question: Can the GOP rescue Hillary Clinton from all but certain defeat? Si se puede!"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I myself am not one to cross over into the other guy's primary, but early anecdotal evidence suggests that Campaign Spot readers in Ohio and Texas are voting for Hillary. [...] The bottom line is that the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more Hillary and Obama spend their resources hitting each other instead of McCain."

CLINTON: Texas Looks Good...

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I've come across a couple of interesting pieces of information that lead me to believe that Clinton may actually have a better day [in TX] than I originally thought...[Although] Obama is up among early voters, [Clinton]'s late surge is helping her immensely among those who intend to vote [today]."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer doesn't think that a popular vote win in TX for would be particularly meaningful for HRC: "It still seems very possible that Clinton will win the popular vote in the [TX] primary [today], which seems to be a benchmark her campaign is shooting for so as not to drop out. In such a case, it would be quite possible, if not likely, that she would gain fewer delegates out of the state than Obama. [...] Such a situation might give Clinton a bit of a momentum boost (even as it would represent a remarkably poor showing in light of polling showing her leading the state by as many as 20 points a few weeks ago, as well as the demographics of the state, which were not long ago presumed to give her an overwhelming advantage). However, it would not get her any closer (and in fact could put her further away) from cutting Obama's large overall delegate lead, so like Atrios and others I'm not entirely sure that this is a terribly meaningful benchmark."

CLINTON II: Ohio Looks Even Better...

Daily Kos' Devilstower notes that HRC is "holding steady" in OH polls: "The latest polling in Ohio shows that the gap between Clinton and Obama, which had been narrowing over the last weeks, seems to have stabilized, or even reversed."

Beeton thinks it will be noteworthy if HRC wins OH by a substantial margin: "If Clinton does indeed win Ohio by 8-10 points [today], gone will be the meme that Clinton's support is tenuous, based almost entirely on name recognition and establishment support, and that all Obama has to do is campaign somewhere and people become enlightened and flock to him."

CLINTON III: In It To Win It

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias expects HRC to stay in the race if she wins TX: "I was reading Chris Bowers' analysis of the polls and it's clear that while Obama's done an impressive job of making up lost ground in Ohio, he's going to lose there. The Texas polling, meanwhile, is too close to call. Obama certainly might win it, but he really might lose. Now under the circumstances, I see no real way for Clinton to make up the lost delegate lead, but at this point it does seem to me that she and her campaign staff are probably egomaniacal enough that if they pull out a narrow 'win' they'll keep running anyway hoping for lightning to strike and seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum strongly disagrees with Yglesias: "Holy cats. This is entering Andrew Sullivan territory. It's also almost certainly wrong on an analytical basis since Democrats are famously hard on candidates who don't win their first time around. Name the last time that a Democratic primary loser came back to win a subsequent Democratic primary without being vice president in between. You have to go back 80 years. Hillary Clinton knows perfectly well that this is her only shot at the presidency. That's why she's fighting so hard."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis throws down the gauntlet: "Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day 'what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?' They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim. [...] Hillary and her campaign are in the process of turning Obama into damaged goods in the fall. They didn't have to go there, but beating Obama became more important to them than beating John McCain. So, the first question for Hillary come Wednesday, should she decide to continue risking our chances of winning in the fall even though the math says it's over, will be the question she's asking Obama today: What negatives will the Republicans throw against you in the fall? And as I've noted repeatedly, there are some negatives out there that most of you don't even know about -- but everyone in Washington knows about them, in detail. That's because even Democrats who don't love Hillary, don't go there, for the good of the party. On Wednesday, the good of the party may dictate that we do."

CLINTON IV: Looks Like We Can Forget That Whole "Unity Ticket" Thing

Obama's online supporters are furious with HRC for a statement she made yesterday, when she seemed to suggest that McCain was more qualified to be President than Obama:

"Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. 'I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,' she said. 'He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.'"

Stoller: "I find stuff like this quote repugnant, and it strikes me as a bad strategic move regardless of who wins the primary. McCain is very dangerous and building him up as experienced, with the implication that he's ready to lead our military, is, shall we say, a bad thing."

TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and [HRC], by default, is McCain's only true adversary? Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting."

Several Daily Kos diarists are up in arms over HRC's remarks:

• hekebolos: "Many of us have expressed the opinion that Hillary would be willing to destroy the Democratic Party to secure the nomination. But I don't think any of us ever expected her to even stoop this low -- explicitly saying that McCain would be a better President than Obama. [...] Critiquing Obama -- that's one thing. Saying that Insane McCain would be a better President than Obama, simply because it helps perpetuate her 'experience' narrative? Absolutely shameful."
• JedReport: "Hillary Clinton's comment is an incredible act of Democratic disloyalty. Can you imagine the outrage if Barack Obama said he preferred John McCain to Hillary Clinton?"
• turneresq: "Hillary's statement is outrageous, essentially cutting an ad for McCain in the general if Obama is the nominee."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey is surprised by HRC's statement: "Did I read this correctly? Did Hillary just endorse John McCain for the presidency over Barack Obama? How else would anyone understand this comment? [...] I guess we have our answer about whether Hillary will withdraw after [today] if she can't win Ohio and Texas. It sounds like she'll stay in through the convention, and possibly do a[n] [Ann] Coulter and campaign for the opposition if she doesn't get her way."

CLINTON V: Media Criticism

Many liberal bloggers are discussing the media's coverage of HRC, which the Clinton camp alleges is unfair:

TPM's Greg Sargent thinks the Clinton camp's complaints are well-founded: "The press and punditry's treatment of Hillary has often been unfair on a very fundamental level, sometimes pathologically so. No other candidate has had to endure the amount of media smut that's been hurled her way. No matter who you support, the quality of the coverage of Hillary is not a state of affairs anyone should be happy about."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees, but thinks the press is beginning to treat Obama unfairly as well: "I agree completely that Hillary Clinton has borne the far greater brunt of media hatred and hostility over the last year...Like the attacks on Obama now, most of those attacks were exactly the sort of petty, personality-based, Drudge-rules-our-world trash that the establishment media specializes in...It was always inevitable that the anti-Hillary media bile would be seamlessly transferred to Obama if he became the nominee. The establishment media, by and large, reveres John McCain on numerous levels, and once Obama stopped being the anti-Hillary, and became the anti-McCain, he would become their target."

Digby: "As I and many others predicted months ago, the media is beginning to feel pressure from Republicans (and perhaps their own professional embarrassment) and are starting to go negative on Senator Obama. Rather than examining their biases and adjusting their coverage to be more fair and dispassionate across the board, they will now 'even things out' by being equally derisive, shallow and trivial toward his campaign. We've already seen the outlines of it in the last debate."

OBAMA: Let's Not Go Overboard...

Some liberal bloggers are pushing back against the Clinton camp's argument that Obama receives highly preferential media coverage:

Bowers sees a contradiction: "If Clinton is so well prepared to handle media attacks, and Obama is so poor at it, then why is Clinton's campaign complaining about unfavorable media coverage titling the election to Obama? Am I the only one who thinks those lines of thought are contradictory? [...] Further, it does not make sense to argue that Obama is untested against Republican attacks, even though during the primary he has faced attacks on his experience, on Rezko, on his past drug use, on the possibility that he is a Muslim, and general race-baiting either directly from the Clinton campaign or from pro-Clinton surrogates. Not only are those exactly the same attacks he will face in the general election, but when both Democrats and Republicans are attacking along those lines, shouldn't the attacks be more effective?"

Yglesias: "I'd say it's definitely true that, on balance, Obama has gotten better press than Clinton. Still, I think Clinton fans are going more than a little overboard with this monocausal account of the campaign. For one thing, one important exception to this is that if Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, there's no way he'd still be treated as a viable candidate. [...] From another direction, even though the press has often been unfair to Clinton about petty stuff, they have been very willing to go along with the idea that she has a vast experience edge over Obama even though it's always been unclear what exactly that edge consisted of. On top of that, the country's most prominent liberal columnist has been pretty consistently attacking Obama for months now."

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall thinks the Clinton camp's complaints have successfully changed the tone of the coverage: "I think the real story is a very effective working of the refs on the part of the Clinton campaign. Going back more than a week the Clinton campaign has made a concerted and aggressive push arguing that they've been the victim of systematically negative press coverage while Obama has gotten a free ride. Whether or not you agree with that claim there's little doubt that the effort has paid off big dividends. The last week's press coverage has featured a mix of stories on the question of relative scrutiny/fairness itself as well as more probing looks into Obama himself."

OBAMA II: If He Can't Face Lynn Sweet, How Can He Face Al-Qaeda?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama for his contentious press conference yesterday:

Ed Morrissey: "Instead of handling the questions calmly and patiently, Obama accused the media of having an agenda against him, and then angrily stalked off...[People] should wonder just how a President Obama would deal with the press and with the accountability that comes with the office. If today's press conference gives any indication, it looks like Obama has some temper and judgment issues of his own -- or that the questions strike a little too close to home."

Jim Geraghty: "Captain Ed notes that Obama answered eight questions before 'stalking out of a press conference.' When John McCain held his press conference on the New York Times' shoddy he-was-in-bed-with-a-lobbyist story, he took thirty-six. Glass jaw?"

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "An impromptu Chicago press conference turned ugly when Obama cut it off after only a few questions. [...] Many have wondered whether Obama has the experience and temperament necessary to make it on the national scene; maybe the question should be whether he can last in his home town."

MCCAIN: Some Endorsements Just Ain't Worth It

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the mini-backlash caused by controversial Rev. John Hagee's endorsement of McCain:

CBN's David Brody publishes a statement by Hagee in which the pastor denies being "anti-Catholic." Brody adds: "Doesn't John McCain just want this whole thing to just go away? Some endorsements can be such a painful thing. It's like if The Brody File was endorsed by Mary Kay Cosmetics. I wouldn't turn it down but what kind of impression does it leave? I like makeup just like the next reporter but...never mind."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The Brent Bozell in me assumes the mainstream media loves, loves, loves a story like this because it portrays religious conservatives in a bad light. On the Right, meanwhile, it's not much of an issue, though I do think it should be a moment for reflection. [...] John McCain could have done without courting this pastor with his anti-Catholic baggage. You know he only did it to help himself with evangelicals, and to any Catholic conservatives paying attention, it only antagonizes. I don't think it does him any real longterm damage, but I'd respect him more if he hadn't."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Press Mood Swings

The New Republic's Michael Crowley notices that the media is becoming much more hostile toward Obama:

"Picking up on Noam [Scheiber]'s observation below about Obama's tough presser and the media mood right now, ABC's 'World News Tonight' was a total disaster for Obama this evening. The show opened with a very positive segment about a momentum-filled Hillary: We see a woman tell Clinton 'you look so young!' A crowd chants 'We love you Hillary!' Then it's a substantive update on the [Austan] Goolsbee/NAFTA flap.

Next, an Obama segment which consists of a highly detailed look at the Rezko case, complete with aerial images of Obama's house and the grim imprimatur of investigative correspondent Brian Ross. Finally, it was footage of that Obama presser, including a few seconds of the candidate walking away as the Chicago Sun-Times's tenacious Lynn Sweet shouts at him that his campaign had been 'disingenuous' about Goolsbee. ABC correspondent David Martin's dour kicker: 'The press corps had a lot more questions he didn't stay to answer.'

I'm also told that CNN's Lou Dobbs absolutely went to town on the Goolsbee flap this evening, which could almost be worth a point or two in Ohio right there."

LEST WE FORGET: Who's The Real Rap Star?

Radar's Nick Curran:

"Thanks to NAFTA and the trial of Tony Rezko, yesterday wasn't a great press day for Barack Obama. But he at least got a little encouraging news about some meaningless endorsements from P. Diddy and 50 Cent. Russell Simmons said yesterday during his press conference endorsing Obama that Diddy called the Obama campaign and hinted that 50 Cent might defect to Obama because he 'didn't know about Hillary anymore.'

Obama made no mention of the potential endorsements yesterday, but did tell a bunch of high schoolers in Texas that he listens to rap sometimes even though he doesn't really approve of it. 'I'll listen to Jay-Z once in a while and some other stuff,' Obama told the youngsters, 'but I have to say that so much of the culture glorifies bling, and, you know, violence, and is disrespectful to women. And we've got to counteract some of those cultural influences.' This sort of talk, coupled with his Wacky D dance routine with Ellen DeGeneres, leaves Mike Gravel, who curses, celebrates drug use, and truly doesn't give a fuck, as the 2008 candidate most simpatico with the hard core rap game."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:43 PM

March 03, 2008

3/3: Great Expectations

The general consensus in the liberal blogosphere is that Hillary Clinton is likely to win OH, while she and Barack Obama are essentially deadlocked in TX. With growing signs pointing to HRC's determination to stay in the race until PA's primary on 4/22, several bloggers are already looking past tomorrow's primaries. If HRC wins OH and TX by solid margins, will John Edwards endorse her? Will the focus of the race (once again) turn to superdelegates? Will FL & MI redo their primaries? Unless Obama manages to score a knock-out blow tomorrow, this speculation will probably only increase in the coming days. John McCain, meanwhile, must be loving it -- particularly as the Clinton camp starts turning the conversation toward national security.

DEM FIELD: The Final Countdown

Open Left's Chris Bowers makes some TX & OH predictions: "[TX] is a real nailbiter. I think Obama will pull it out, because there are more indications that early voting favors him than Clinton, and because he tends to outperform polling more often than Clinton. However, both candidates still clearly have a shot to win the primary portion of the Texas nominating contest, which could be the difference to Clinton staying in the campaign after Tuesday, and Obama becoming the presumptive nominee. [...] I expect Clinton to win Ohio by 3-5%, which puts a lot of pressure on Texas to decide whether the nomination campaign moves forward or not."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer agrees that TX is a nailbiter: "Obama's lead of a point -- or perhaps even two or three -- in Texas is illusory at this juncture. Certainly it's true that Obama has been coming on extremely strongly in the state, and that the unique rules seem to give him an advantage (both because of the allocation of delegates across state Senate districts and because of caucus held immediately after the primary). Nevertheless, this contest could still go in either direction."

Daily Kos' DHinMI thinks polls might underestimate Obama's support: "An analysis of the poll results using the data at Pollster.com shows that Clinton has generally performed consistent with the public polls, while Obama has consistently performed much better than the average of the public polls. [...] If the pattern seen in these figures continues on Tuesday, Obama will win Texas and possibly Ohio as well."

CLINTON: What's Her Endgame?

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis thinks HRC should quit the race if she fails to significantly cut into Obama's delegate lead: "If [HRC] doesn't win 65% of the delegates in both Ohio and Texas, it's actually over for her -- the math says she simply can't win the nomination without that margin of victory. [...] This race is getting far too bitter. I see it in our own readers -- it went from friendly competition to a death match about 4 weeks ago. If Hillary doesn't get her 65% of delegates in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, she needs to accept that she lost, and quit the race. If she doesn't, then I suspect the negative attacks that are going to be making news next week won't be Hillary's at all. They're going to be from the rest of the party demanding that she concede."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat sets more attainable benchmarks for HRC: "My own view is that if Clinton does not win both Ohio and Texas, she SHOULD drop out but I also think she has every right to continue. And if she wins both, calls for her to drop out will look ludicrous and fearful."

Atrios: "While the notion of this thing continuing until Pennsylvania so that I can actually vote has some appeal, I'm really not sure I can stand another 7 weeks of this. Having said that, this election season doesn't exist for my amusement so campaigns are of course perfectly entitled to stay in the thing as long as they want."

MyDD's Todd Beeton anticipates re-votes in FL & MI: "If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, there is no doubt this primary will continue, likely at least into late April when Pennsylvania votes. And if that happens, while it's been off the radar screen a bit, we should expect a return to a discussion of what happens to Michigan and Florida, because, let's face it, Hillary Clinton needs those delegates to close the pledged delegate gap with Barack Obama. [...] What Clinton should hope happens, both because she needs an infusion of pledged delegates sooner rather than later and because she needs a nomination victory to be a clean unambiguous win, is that Michigan and Florida are allowed to redo their primary following a period of campaigning by both candidates. This would appear the fairest scenario and, while it poses logistical problems to be sure, it's certainly a scenario that neither side would appear to have a viable argument against."

Ezra Klein: "It's very hard to imagine the superdelegates going against a candidate leading by 100 delegates. Very, very hard. Indeed, the most influential among them -- John Lewis, Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer -- are already laying the groundwork to support whichever candidate is ahead in delegates. I'm having trouble figuring out the scenario by which Clinton still wins this thing."

CLINTON II: Scaring You Into Voting For...McCain?

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks HRC's ominous new TV ad, which implies that Obama isn't ready to be Commander in Chief, was designed to help McCain: "My conspiracy-theory analysis: The Clinton campaign did not release that ad for the sake of Clinton 2008. It is to defeat Obama, for sure. But not now. Hillary knows she's going down. They issued that ad because they want McCain to win. She thinks she can be a star in the Senate, leader of the Democratic party when he loses. So the commercial is her gift to John McCain. She's got her eye on 2012."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren agrees: "I agree that Hillary's commander in chief ads will ultimately serve as a gift to the McCain campaign. Indeed, because they are so true, many of her criticisms of his lack of substance will redound to McCain's benefit in November -- even if they did nothing for her."

Glenn Reynolds links to Lopez's post and wonders: "Are the Clintons capable of such breathtaking cynicism and selfishness?"

Meanwhile, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein makes an observation: "On an ongoing Clinton campaign conference call, chief strategist Mark Penn just said: 'If Senator Obama can't seem to be commander in chief against Senator Clinton, how could he possibly expect to be seen as someone who could win the commander in chief argument against John McCain?' That sounds to me like an accidental confession by the Clinton camp that McCain is the far more credible commander in chief."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle isn't surprised: "Hillary Clinton has been launching attacks on Barack Obama that will make it harder for him to win the experience argument if he is the nominee. Why shouldn't she undercut herself too?"

OBAMA: Dean 2.0?

The Nation's Ari Berman thinks Obama is the heir to Howard Dean's 50-state strategy: "In contrast to Clinton's campaign, Obama's -- with its hundreds of thousands of small donors, Internet buzz and red-state appeal -- reflects to a great extent the realization of Dean's ideals. Dean's argument for how to rebuild and expand the party base for the long term found its perfect short-term exponent in Obama, whose appeal to independents and liberal Republicans and talk of 'unity' is planting Democratic roots in unfamiliar places. 'The Obama for President campaign is what all of us hoped Dean for President would become,' says Steve McMahon, a former top Dean strategist who's stayed neutral in '08. 'Obama is Dean 2.0, dramatically updated to reflect the emergence of the grassroots.'"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas agrees with Berman: "It's amazing that when Jerome [Armstrong] and I wrote Crashing the Gate, with its uncompromising promotion of the 50-state strategy, the notion was still considered incredibly controversial. Now, it's accepted CW in most quarters. [...] As the Republican Party becomes increasingly a regional party, locked out of entire swaths of the nation, the Democrats are headed in the opposite direction. We have a likely nominee that has a demonstrated commitment to furthering the pioneering work by Howard Dean in 2004 and beyond. There was a battle over the soul of this party -- between those who would hoard power in DC, and those who would spread it around the entire country, empowering individuals to work toward a progressive national majority. The good guys won, in no small part because of Dean."

Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "This Ari Berman article is a hoot...I have written about Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and I think Berman and others do not understand it. But that is a debate we can have. But it offends me that people like Joe Trippi argue that Barack Obama is a natural extension of Fighting Democrats like Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone. Excuse me, I saw Howard Dean in 2003. I admired what he did to give Democrats their fighting spirit back. Barack Obama has no resemblance to the Howard Dean that helped make me proud to be a member of the Democratic Party."

OBAMA II: Bipartisanship, My A**

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the latest column by The Washington Post's David Ignatius, entitled, "Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder":

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Ignatius argues that Obama has done little more than grab the low-hanging fruit of bipartisanship while avoiding all the risks. [...] I argued this yesterday. Of the three candidates left standing in this cycle, John McCain has the clearest record of bipartisanship and of pressing for change in Washington politics. Granted, that hasn't made many in his party very happy with him, but McCain has had the courage to take those risks. [...] Obama's record shows him to be a doctrinaire Democrat, and one from the farther reaches of the Left. His voting record on the rest of the issues -- thin as it is -- shows no indication that he will govern from the center."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Ignatius, of course, is no tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And all he is discussing are the facts that are and should be available to anyone with any interest whatsoever in looking at Obama's record...Obama likes to glide past this inconvenient truth by claiming that his critics simply want him to stay in Washington so that they can 'boil the hope out of him.' It's a nice line but it really shouldn't cover up matters. The fact is that Obama's record of accomplishment is inversely proportional to the intensity of his political ambitions."

On the left side of the blogosphere, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias mocks Ignatius' column: "The best thing about David Ignatius' hit on Barack Obama is that amidst his lengthy whine that Obama hasn't done enough to 'anger any of the party's interest groups' he doesn't offer any examples of group-angering action that he wishes Obama would take. After all, once you reach a certain lofty peak of beltwayishness, you're above petty demands to think about policy. Rather, your role is to castigate interest groups, especially liberal ones, as the bane of all existence. After all, where do these people get off forming groups to advocate for their interests? Maybe Obama should have become a global warming denialist? Advocated that we intensify legal discrimination against gays and lesbians? Steps like those sure would have socked it to the interest groups!"

MCCAIN: When Endorsements Bite Back

Liberal bloggers continue to savage McCain for his "proud" acceptance of Rev. John Hagee's endorsement:

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "John McCain has put his arms around one of the most radical and vile extremists in America. He has praised him, shared a stage with him, sought out his endorsement and expressed 'honor' at receiving it, and has denounced not a word of anything he said."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Notice the pattern: An outrageous, racist, hateful charge is made by a McCain ally. McCain disavows the claim and says he didn't even know the offender. We find out McCain is lying. The media continue to fawn over McCain and maintain he would never be mean or negative. That's the pattern for now. It's going to change."

Daily Kos' BarbinMD wants the media to ask McCain if he shares Hagee's more controversial views:

"If [the media] are done deciding whether or not Barack Obama's rejection and denouncement of Louis Farrakhan was enough, perhaps they could ask John McCain for some clarification. Their questions could go something like this:

• Senator McCain, do you believe that there is a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews?


• Senator McCain, regarding Hurricane Katrina, do you believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that?


• Senator McCain, do you believe that the only difference between a woman with PMS and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Iraq And The Mac

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat summarizes McCain's challenge:

"Basically, McCain isn't going to win this election without 1) making the race turn on foreign policy to a greater extent than it looks like it will right now, and 2) persuading a large chunk of the American public that his instincts about Iraq might be better than theirs. If he can't pull this twofer off, he doesn't have a chance."

LEST WE FORGET: Ad Campaign Appeals To Young, Hip, Influenced-By-Ad-Campaigns Demographic

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- According to new market research, a multimillion dollar broadcast, radio, print, billboard, and online viral campaign launched Monday by the Axiom Marketing Agency tested 'off the charts' among its target market of hip, urban 18- to 34-year-olds who base their actions and opinions entirely on the suggestions of ad campaigns. 'This is exactly the type of customer we're looking to reach,' said the campaign's chief strategist Ben Jacobs, 28. 'It's showing tremendous impact on the cool, media-savvy rebels who distrust authority, prize alternative culture, think outside of the mainstream, and are willing to base their actions entirely on advertising images presented to them on TV. How dope is that?' The campaign, which advertises a new, youth-oriented version of Raisinets called Raisin d'Etre, is expected to make an impressive showing at the upcoming Counterculture Ad Fair sponsored by Procter and Gamble and held at the Staples Center in Los Angeles."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:58 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.