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 March 14, 2008 12:56 PM