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 March 11, 2008 12:56 PM