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 March 10, 2008 01:05 PM