March 19, 2008

3/19: Partisanship Is Back!

Barack Obama may seek to unite the American people, but yesterday's speech about race -- and the Jeremiah Wright controversy more generally -- has certainly polarized the political blogosphere. Obama's speech received near-universal acclaim from liberal bloggers and near-universal condemnation from conservative bloggers.

On the left, bloggers were impressed by Obama's political courage in tackling the difficult subject of race, and they described the speech as "brilliant," "riveting," and "politically risky." Yet while they loved the speech's content, many were uncertain as to what its ultimate political ramifications would be. On the right, bloggers accused Obama of offering "false moral equivalence," "blame whitey," and "the politics of grievance." Many are convinced that Obama's friendship with Wright will doom him in the general election, if not the Dem primary. And conservative bloggers are now more strongly opposed to Obama than ever before, as James Antle notes.

One thing is clear: those who predicted that an Obama-John McCain race would lead to a "civil" debate about this country's future (we're looking at you, Andrew Sullivan!) are deluding themselves. If the conservative reaction to the Wright controversy is any indication, an Obama-McCain race would be just as nasty as a Hillary Clinton-McCain race.

DEM FIELD: Denver, Are You Ready To Rumble?

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks a floor fight at the Dem convention is inevitable: "Barring a miraculous deal on Michigan that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns agree to, the failure to secure a revote in Michigan all but guarantees that the nomination campaign will head straight through to the convention. [...] The Clinton campaign will push for Michigan and Florida to be seated as is, and use the Michigan and Florida delegations to argue that Obama has not yet clinched the nomination. After June 3rd, they will take that argument to the credentials committee, which gains authority over the matter on June 11th. From that point, the credentials committee will probably deny the Clinton's campaign's argument to seat both delegations as is, since Obama will probably control the majority of seats on the committee. The next step will be for the Clinton faction on the committee to file a minority report on the delegations, which will then be referred to the full convention. The full floor vote on the Michigan and Florida delegations will then be a good proxy to determine who will win the nomination on the first ballot."

Bowers concludes: "And that is what the convention fight of 2008 will probably look like. Obama will still probably win, since he leads by 18 delegates even with both Michigan and Florida included, by a much larger amount without either delegation included, and since a significant majority of the undecided Michigan delegates will probably vote for him. However, this will probably make the task of defeating John McCain much more difficult. The party simply won't have as long of a time to unify after the nomination fight, and quite a few people are going to be extremely upset no matter who ends up winning."

Several liberal bloggers, fearful of a convention floor fight, are urging superdelegates to pick a nominee now:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It's up to those super delegates to decide whether we, as a party and as a nation, are better off letting this thing drag on into the convention, or whether they step up as leaders and ratify the inevitable outcome before more damage is done."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It's by now well established that, with a lead in delegates, popular vote, and number of states won, Barack Obama's path to nomination is a lot easier than Clinton's. But, with Clinton having decided to stay in the race despite Obama's difficult-to-surmount lead, it looks like the fight could continue over months. [...] Clinton may not be willing to admit that it's over, and the media may enjoy perpetuating the fight, but others shouldn't be so reticent. To prevent tearing the Democratic party apart and destroying a chance for a historic election, we need to be done with this."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Now, can we move on? It's time to wrap up this nomination battle so we can start running against McCain."

OBAMA: Wowing The Liberal Blogosphere

Liberal bloggers thought Obama's speech was honest, courageous, and powerful:

• Ezra Klein: "This speech was something I didn't expect: Honest. It was honest about Obama's affection for Wright, even as it repudiated Wright's comments. It was honest about the tragic history of race in America, even as it expressed faith in a redemptive future. It was...honest in admitting that there's anger in this country, and it's justified, and that there's fear in this country, and it's real. [...] Obama could have simply preached unity and forgiveness without recognizing the realities of anger and resentment. He could have done as Mitt Romney did, and sought to protect his political vulnerabilities by picking new enemies. [...] But he didn't. He's betting he can universalize this experience, too, and that he'll find more votes in unity than in division. It is, at best, a gamble. But at least it's an honest one."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I do not doubt at all that this was a politically risky speech. [...] The expectation from some might have been that Obama would have given a more bland speech, one that only dealt with the narrowest and most specific issue at hand at the moment: The comments of Jeremiah Wright. I submit, however, that Obama could not have succeeded in giving such a speech. Such a speech simply would not have been politically efficacious. It would have carried less risk, it might have offended some less, but it just would not have done what it needed to do -- get the campaign back on message. [...] Here, Obama took a leap of faith on a speech he personally penned. He put his heart on the line. And at least to me...he did connect. He hit the home run that [Chuck] Todd and [Mark] Murray talked about."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I found the speech riveting, provocative, insightful, thoughtful and courageous -- courageous because it eschewed almost completely all cliches, pandering and condescension, the first time I can recall a political figure of any significance doing so when addressing a controversial matter."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I found Obama's speech rather extraordinary. Indeed, it's the kind of speech politicians just don't give anymore -- a brilliant address with context and nuance. It answered key questions, while challenging his audience with new ones."
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "I've never heard this kind of candor from a politician, perhaps because there has never been a national political figure in the position to speak so eloquently on the state of race relations in our country. It was stark. It was honest. [...] This was the most important address on race since Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech."
• Open Left's Mimikatz: "Barack Obama's hearalded speech on race is the most honest appraisal of racial problems in America I can remember a politician ever giving. [...] His biggest gamble is to treat the subject with the depth and seriousness and complexity that it deserves. He is banking on enough reporters, pundits and voters hearing him out on this very difficult subject. If anyone can move our dialogue on race, our political discourse and our media coverage forward, he can. If we can't, as he says, we are condemned to repeat this mess over and over again."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Very impressive."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, who's been a harsh critic of Obama, did not like the speech: "What Obama wants to do is pivot it back to Clinton vs Obama, and get the Republican attack on him through Wright off the table, so he's equated Wright and [Geraldine] Ferraro multiple times in the speech. [...] This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low."

OBAMA II: Now, Getting Back To Politics...

Several liberal bloggers, while praising the content of Obama's speech, questioned its political effectiveness:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "[Obama's speech] is remarkable for its nuance, for its long view of history, and for its decency. I am not sure, on first take, how effective it is politically."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I hope Obama's speech worked politically today, for the sake of the Democratic Party. It was certainly a beautiful speech."
• Mother Jones' David Corn: "With this address, Obama presented a candid approach to race. Still, there's no telling if this will help him in his fierce battle with Hillary Clinton -- let alone in a general election, should he secure the Democratic presidential nomination."
• The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Obama's race speech [was] brilliant, beautiful, inspiring -- but perhaps not what crass electoral politics demanded of him."

Other bloggers think this speech could effectively wrap up the nomination for Obama:

• Ezra Klein: "To think through the political implications of the speech for a second, the real loser here looks to be Clinton. Now that Obama's candidacy is, in part, a referendum on the party's willingness to confront the issue of race and forge a cross-ethnic alliance in search of economic justice, it's hard to see how the supers can side with Clinton. Not because Obama is right in his quest, but because his candidacy is now too deeply intertwined with the history of the Democratic Party and the coalition that has evolved to support it. [...] A break with African-Americans would be devastating to the party, and an elite decision to choose Clinton over Obama looks ever more likely to create such a split."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'd say things are back on track. The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- if they could produce a result in Pennsylvania that looked like a Wright-induced collapse in Obama's white support, maybe they could convince superdelegates that he's unelectable. After this speech, I don't see it happening."

OBAMA III: Thinking Big

Obama's speech led a few liberal bloggers to discuss Obama's candidacy more generally:

• Ed Kilgore: "This speech ups the ante for Obama's promise to act as a reconciler and unifier. After this speech, no one should be under the impression that he's mainly interested in overcoming the narcissistic culture-based political conflicts of the 1990s. He's now casting his candidacy as an opportunity to transcend one of the biggest continuing traumas of the 19th and 20th centuries, and of centuries before that: race. There's never been much question that he was viewed that way by many supporters. But now it's explicitly on the table, and we'll soon find out how much reconciliation and unity Americans really want, and on what terms."
• Greenwald: "The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the [assumption] that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation -- the Drudgian Freak Show -- that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least. [...] But in Obama's faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press."
• dday: "I don't know or really care if it will work electorally; but it was vital that it is said on a big stage out loud. The 'bring us together instead of drive us apart' thematic of the Obama campaign has been viewed by some as a kind of high Broderism, as a false sense that through bipartisanship people with different ideologies and beliefs can work in harmony and peace. That misunderstands things a bit, in my view. Obama is talking about bringing together those Americans who already share the same beliefs but have had wedges driven between them. There's nothing particularly novel about this concept but we've been so rightly skeptical of messages of unity that I think it's gotten muddled."

OBAMA IV: Blame Whitey

Most conservative bloggers were extremely critical of Obama's speech:

• Michelle Malkin: "For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama's talk amounted to the same old, same old. [...] Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey."
• NRO's John Derbyshire: "It's just the old leftist shtick. [...] Blame whitey, and raise high the red flag of socialism. This is a serious candidate for the Presidency?"
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Honest question: What's the difference between Al Sharpton and Barack Obama? They have the same positions on the issues and they both embrace radical racists like Jeremiah Wright. So, the honest answer is that the only real difference is that Obama and Sharpton don't use the same rhetoric. Scratch away the pretty, flowing rhetoric that Barack uses and you'll find the same ugly, racist policies underneath."
• NRO's Charlotte Hays: "Obama is no longer a post-racial candidate. In his speech [today], he has embraced the politics of grievance."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The more I think about this speech, the more I think Obama said: Damn straight, Rev. Wright is angry. That's how I wound up at his church. That's why I stay there. I'm mad too, I just control it better. Now let's get electing me president so we can all feel good."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "It was a typical Obama speech -- soaring rhetoric, allusions to Martin Luther King, Jr., and probably a few fainters in the audience. It was a ballsy speech to be sure. But it was still bull. Obama wants to be both the black candidate and the candidate above race. He wants to embrace race and move beyond race. He tries to have his cake and eat it too. He wants us to do the same. I for one threw up."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "Obama's Philadelphia speech on race was an extremely deft pivot turning an issue about his honesty and judgment into an issue about America's racism. [...] Obama made a bad judgment when he chose to include Wright in his campaign. He made a bad judgment when he hoped the media wouldn't discover Wright's bigotry. When the issue came to light, Obama immediately began lying about what he knew about Wright's views and distorting his relationship with him. So of course Obama wants the Rev. Wright issue to be about race, because otherwise the issue is about Obama's dishonesty and lack of judgment."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Partisanship aside, as much as I loathe his politics, I always liked Obama the man and believed that his devotion to racial reconciliation was sincere. I don't anymore."

Righty bloggers were particularly critical of what they perceived as Obama's attempt to draw a false equivalency between his white grandmother and Wright:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Even amid the false equivalencies and obvious evasions of his speech today, Obama's misuse of his grandmother seems to me a striking sign of poor character."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "'The Throw Your Grandmother Under the Bus Speech.' That's what a friend of mine calls it. She only raised him -- to get compared to a raving anti-American pastor in his hour of political need."

OBAMA V: Hey, I Didn't Think It Was That Bad!

Surprisingly, a few conservative bloggers were impressed by Obama's speech:

• NRO's Charles Murray: "I read the various posts here on 'The Corner,' mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols...But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I've been as harsh on Obama's relation to Jeremiah Wright as anyone. But I'll be damned if I didn't literally tear up during the speech he just gave (and which, incidentally, he wrote himself). His expression of patriotic love for the only country in the world where his story is possible, his praise of how far we've come on the issue of race, his faith that we can and will come further -- it was pitch-perfect. Yes, the association with Wright still bothers me, and in a perfect world it would be disqualifying. But I think he just put it behind him, and maybe even turned it into a news cycle victory."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If that speech doesn't help Obama, I don't know what will. Intelligently written, movingly delivered. [...] The genius of Barack Obama is that he is able to take the concerns of people who disagree with him, summarize those concerns fairly and eloquently, accept and affirm the goodness of their motives -- and then politely restate his original liberal position. That genius was on display today."

Unsurprisingly, Andrew Sullivan loved the speech: "This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history. [...] I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy -- not this man, his candidacy -- and what he can bring us to achieve -- is an historic opportunity."

OBAMA VI: You Can't Talk Your Way Out Of This One

For many conservative bloggers, the speech itself is irrelevant; Obama's 20-year association with Wright is damning by itself:

• Glenn Reynolds: "It seems to have been a good speech. The question is, how much does that help a guy who's known for giving good speeches, when the real question is whether he means what he says?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Although Obama's speech is not without its evasions, I consider it a courageous one by usual political standards. He has refused to walk away from Wright's black liberation theology when it might well have been expedient to do so. The rest of us now should have the courage to take Obama at his word and decide whether it is acceptable to elect as president of the United States someone who carries Rev. Wright around as part of him, and who takes his ranting seriously."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[There is] no 'Wright' explanation. [...] The issue is a simple one. Barack Obama attended Jeremiah Wright's church for more than twenty years, was baptized by him, married by him and had his children baptized by him. For a long time, a person who damns America was an important part of the Obamas' lives, and was not repudiated until it became politically necessary. When all Barack's oratory about the matter has been set aside, that's either acceptable to a voter or it isn't."
• NRO's Amy Holmes: "Where does this leave Obama? Not much better off than where he was 24 hours ago. Pastor Wright has singlehandedly turned Obama into the race candidate. For every person who listened to Obama's speech today are a hundred uncommitted voters who haven't yet seen the video clips and who will be shocked and appalled when they do."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I think the truth, buried in all this rhetoric and gloss, is clear: Obama sat there in church for twenty years, listening with his kids to a preacher vilifying his country, white people in general, and the state of Israel, and lacked the moral gumption to leave. I think the halo has slipped."

MCCAIN: You Say Sunni, I Say Shi'a

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for repeatedly "misidentif[ying] some of the main players in the Iraq war" during his trip to Jordan. The Washington Post's Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear report:

"Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran. He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq."

• Daily Kos' smintheus: "This isn't just a minor slip. This betrays a profound lack of foreign policy expertise, a shallowness so extreme that if the remark had been made by Barack Obama, say, it would have called into question his viability as a presidential candidate."
• Singer: "Given that John McCain apparently does not understand one of the most fundamental issues pertaining to the Iraq War and the broader situation in the Middle East today -- that Iran is a Shi'a power fighting for Shi'a interests and is in no way allied with the Sunni Al Qaeda, which is fighting for very different interests (particularly in Iraq, where the two groups tend to find themselves on opposite ends of the conflict) -- is he really prepared to be Commander-in-Chief?"
• Yglesias: "This isn't just an issue of McCain blowing some trivia answer, it seems to call into question whether he's really been paying attention to the Iraq issue over the past couple of years. He's very sure that the surge is working, but doesn't understand the basic contours of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq? Seems strange."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "How will the media explain this? Was the old warrior just momentarily confused? Does that happen often? Or Did John McCain just illustrate he is as dangerously misinformed as the President? Neither man can sort out Sunnies from Shia, al Qaeda from the Iranians, and who hates whom, but both men are certain the lives and treasure they've sacrificed in fighting -- who? -- were worth it."
• Meanwhile, Mark Kleiman thinks HRC should retract her previous statements about McCain's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief: "Given McCain's buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn't this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say, 'Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn't sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are.'"
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum likes Kleiman's suggestion: "It's a twofer! Count me in."

Liberal bloggers are also discussing the news (reported by Think Progress' Ali Frick) that McCain made the same false assertion about al-Queda and Iran before, while appearing on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show."
• Joe Sudbay: "Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. That's a pretty big mistake for someone who is supposed to be so steeped in foreign policy and Iraq."

MCCAIN II: He Was Right The First Time!

Conservative bloggers are denying that McCain made a gaffe:

• The Weekly Standard's Thomas Joscelyn: "McCain was right the first time. He shouldn't have taken his statement back. And it's the bloggers who are ignorant -- not John McCain."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Here is the truth: al Qaeda has been receiving funding, training, and equipment from Iran during the last year-plus of the Iraq War, and denial of that fact belies a willful ignorance -- and a desire to remain ignorant -- of the truth, at very least."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As far as I know, Iran hasn't recently been training al Qaeda terrorists, but if that's true, it is only because they haven't needed it, not because of some supposed inability of Sunni and Shia terrorists to cooperate in attacking the United States and its interests. The reporters who solemnly assure their readers that Shia/Sunni collaboration is impossible, notwithstanding that it is a documented fact, are the direct descendants of those who thought that fascists and communists were irreconcilable foes, only to be stunned by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, one group of thugs is very much like another, and thugs have never hesitated to find allies where they can, when it suits their interests."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We've Never Thought About It That Way...

Dilbert Blog's Scott Adams:

"Why [do] so-called natural meat eaters feel the need to disguise their food by cutting it into steaks, cooking it, and covering it with barbecue sauce? If eating meat is natural, you would expect it to make you hungry in its natural condition. Looking at a cow should make you salivate when you are hungry.

Am I wrong?"

LEST WE FORGET: Why White People Like Dinner Parties

Stuff White People Like explains the significance of dinner parties:

"The dinner party is the opportunity for white people to be judged on their taste in food, wine, furniture, art, interior design, music, and books. Outside of dictatorships and a few murder trials, there might not be a more rigorous judgment process in the modern world. Everything must be perfect. One copy of US Weekly, a McDonalds wrapper, a book by John Grisham, a Third Eye Blind CD, or an Old School DVD can undo months and maybe even years of work. [...]"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 19, 2008 12:54 PM