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 March 13, 2008 12:53 PM