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 March 12, 2008 12:55 PM