March 04, 2008

3/4: The Comeback Begins?

The general blogosphere consensus that we described yesterday -- that Hillary Clinton will win Ohio, while Texas remains a toss-up -- has solidified. Furthermore, HRC's momentum in the most recent TX polls has increased the likelihood that she will win the TX popular vote (if not the TX caucus). So, it's looking more and more probable that tonight will be a big night for HRC, and most liberal bloggers now believe that the Dem race will continue until the PA primary on 4/22.

Naturally, conservative bloggers are delighted by this prospect. They continue to direct most of their fire at Barack Obama, hammering the IL senator for his relationship with Tony Rezko, his NAFTA troubles, and his foreign policy experience. Does the righty blogosphere's continued focus on Obama suggest that they still view him as the likely Dem nominee? And will that change if HRC does very well tonight, or will conservatives continue to target Obama almost exclusively?

DEM FIELD: Hillary's Got The Mo

Liberal bloggers are discussing the latest tracking polls, which suggest that HRC has momentum in both OH and TX:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Seems as though there might be new life for the Clinton campaign. She looks good in Ohio, and Texas is now razor-thin, but with slight Clinton momentum. [...] Obama's pledged delegate advantage is unassailable. For Clinton, the goal is to use a win in the Texas primary in order to change the narrative and improve her standing in post-March 4th states. [...] I still think we are headed to Pennsylvania. Clinton will win Ohio, and probably Rhode Island. She also should come close in Texas, and probably declare some sort of victory as a result. I'm getting antsy to take on [John] McCain, but Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be a problem, and setting up a massive Pennsylvania operation wouldn't hurt, either."

Open Left's Matt Stoller also thinks we are headed to PA: "I have no idea what is going to happen, but my general rule of thumb is that the most annoying scenario is also the most likely scenario simply because I enjoy feeling sorry for myself. So Clinton wins Ohio 54-46 and Texas by 51-49, though Obama will take more delegates in Texas because that system is crazy. And then the campaign goes to Pennsylvania."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "If the polls bear out, we seem set for a result that will lead to minor or major crowing from the Clinton camp, with a victory in Ohio seeming very likely and at a least a primary popular vote victory in Texas looking like a distinct possibility. [...] The upshot is that the Clinton campaign may come out of tonight with a major shot in the arm and a round of good press and yet still be in no more realistic a position to win the nomination based on the stubborn tally of delegates."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas believes that "Clinton has gained some ground (or at least stemmed the bleeding) in the last few days," but he still predicts a comfortable win in TX for Obama:

Ohio: Clinton +4

Texas: Obama +12

Rhode Island: Clinton +6

Vermont: Obama +35

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat offers his own predictions: "Clinton by 10 in Ohio. Clinton by 14 in RI. Obama by 30 in Vermont. Obama by 2 in Texas. The first three are fairly conventional. But why do I think Obama wins in Texas? Because [John] Zogby said Clinton would win Texas. Kidding. I'll tell you why. Because I think African American turnout will be through the roof, swamping every other factor in its path. That's the reason."

DEM FIELD II: The View From The Right

Conservative bloggers are delighted by the prospect of HRC and Obama fighting it out for another six weeks:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If HRC staggers BO today, the GOP will be popping corks all night long as the inevitability of a long, drawn out and increasingly bitter fight becomes obvious."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Personally, I just want to see the two of them slug it out all the way through the convention."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "If Hillary wins both Ohio and Texas and stays in the race, the Democrats keep bludgeoning each other for another few months. If Obama knocks her out of the race tonight, the Clinton era is over. Sounds like a win win to me."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers are joining Rush Limbaugh in urging TX GOPers to vote for HRC:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[HRC] leads in two of the last three polls and trails by a solitary point in the other. This thing is winnable, baby. All we have to do is want it enough. Exit question: Can the GOP rescue Hillary Clinton from all but certain defeat? Si se puede!"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I myself am not one to cross over into the other guy's primary, but early anecdotal evidence suggests that Campaign Spot readers in Ohio and Texas are voting for Hillary. [...] The bottom line is that the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more Hillary and Obama spend their resources hitting each other instead of McCain."

CLINTON: Texas Looks Good...

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I've come across a couple of interesting pieces of information that lead me to believe that Clinton may actually have a better day [in TX] than I originally thought...[Although] Obama is up among early voters, [Clinton]'s late surge is helping her immensely among those who intend to vote [today]."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer doesn't think that a popular vote win in TX for would be particularly meaningful for HRC: "It still seems very possible that Clinton will win the popular vote in the [TX] primary [today], which seems to be a benchmark her campaign is shooting for so as not to drop out. In such a case, it would be quite possible, if not likely, that she would gain fewer delegates out of the state than Obama. [...] Such a situation might give Clinton a bit of a momentum boost (even as it would represent a remarkably poor showing in light of polling showing her leading the state by as many as 20 points a few weeks ago, as well as the demographics of the state, which were not long ago presumed to give her an overwhelming advantage). However, it would not get her any closer (and in fact could put her further away) from cutting Obama's large overall delegate lead, so like Atrios and others I'm not entirely sure that this is a terribly meaningful benchmark."

CLINTON II: Ohio Looks Even Better...

Daily Kos' Devilstower notes that HRC is "holding steady" in OH polls: "The latest polling in Ohio shows that the gap between Clinton and Obama, which had been narrowing over the last weeks, seems to have stabilized, or even reversed."

Beeton thinks it will be noteworthy if HRC wins OH by a substantial margin: "If Clinton does indeed win Ohio by 8-10 points [today], gone will be the meme that Clinton's support is tenuous, based almost entirely on name recognition and establishment support, and that all Obama has to do is campaign somewhere and people become enlightened and flock to him."

CLINTON III: In It To Win It

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias expects HRC to stay in the race if she wins TX: "I was reading Chris Bowers' analysis of the polls and it's clear that while Obama's done an impressive job of making up lost ground in Ohio, he's going to lose there. The Texas polling, meanwhile, is too close to call. Obama certainly might win it, but he really might lose. Now under the circumstances, I see no real way for Clinton to make up the lost delegate lead, but at this point it does seem to me that she and her campaign staff are probably egomaniacal enough that if they pull out a narrow 'win' they'll keep running anyway hoping for lightning to strike and seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum strongly disagrees with Yglesias: "Holy cats. This is entering Andrew Sullivan territory. It's also almost certainly wrong on an analytical basis since Democrats are famously hard on candidates who don't win their first time around. Name the last time that a Democratic primary loser came back to win a subsequent Democratic primary without being vice president in between. You have to go back 80 years. Hillary Clinton knows perfectly well that this is her only shot at the presidency. That's why she's fighting so hard."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis throws down the gauntlet: "Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day 'what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?' They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim. [...] Hillary and her campaign are in the process of turning Obama into damaged goods in the fall. They didn't have to go there, but beating Obama became more important to them than beating John McCain. So, the first question for Hillary come Wednesday, should she decide to continue risking our chances of winning in the fall even though the math says it's over, will be the question she's asking Obama today: What negatives will the Republicans throw against you in the fall? And as I've noted repeatedly, there are some negatives out there that most of you don't even know about -- but everyone in Washington knows about them, in detail. That's because even Democrats who don't love Hillary, don't go there, for the good of the party. On Wednesday, the good of the party may dictate that we do."

CLINTON IV: Looks Like We Can Forget That Whole "Unity Ticket" Thing

Obama's online supporters are furious with HRC for a statement she made yesterday, when she seemed to suggest that McCain was more qualified to be President than Obama:

"Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. 'I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,' she said. 'He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.'"

Stoller: "I find stuff like this quote repugnant, and it strikes me as a bad strategic move regardless of who wins the primary. McCain is very dangerous and building him up as experienced, with the implication that he's ready to lead our military, is, shall we say, a bad thing."

TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and [HRC], by default, is McCain's only true adversary? Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting."

Several Daily Kos diarists are up in arms over HRC's remarks:

• hekebolos: "Many of us have expressed the opinion that Hillary would be willing to destroy the Democratic Party to secure the nomination. But I don't think any of us ever expected her to even stoop this low -- explicitly saying that McCain would be a better President than Obama. [...] Critiquing Obama -- that's one thing. Saying that Insane McCain would be a better President than Obama, simply because it helps perpetuate her 'experience' narrative? Absolutely shameful."
• JedReport: "Hillary Clinton's comment is an incredible act of Democratic disloyalty. Can you imagine the outrage if Barack Obama said he preferred John McCain to Hillary Clinton?"
• turneresq: "Hillary's statement is outrageous, essentially cutting an ad for McCain in the general if Obama is the nominee."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey is surprised by HRC's statement: "Did I read this correctly? Did Hillary just endorse John McCain for the presidency over Barack Obama? How else would anyone understand this comment? [...] I guess we have our answer about whether Hillary will withdraw after [today] if she can't win Ohio and Texas. It sounds like she'll stay in through the convention, and possibly do a[n] [Ann] Coulter and campaign for the opposition if she doesn't get her way."

CLINTON V: Media Criticism

Many liberal bloggers are discussing the media's coverage of HRC, which the Clinton camp alleges is unfair:

TPM's Greg Sargent thinks the Clinton camp's complaints are well-founded: "The press and punditry's treatment of Hillary has often been unfair on a very fundamental level, sometimes pathologically so. No other candidate has had to endure the amount of media smut that's been hurled her way. No matter who you support, the quality of the coverage of Hillary is not a state of affairs anyone should be happy about."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees, but thinks the press is beginning to treat Obama unfairly as well: "I agree completely that Hillary Clinton has borne the far greater brunt of media hatred and hostility over the last year...Like the attacks on Obama now, most of those attacks were exactly the sort of petty, personality-based, Drudge-rules-our-world trash that the establishment media specializes in...It was always inevitable that the anti-Hillary media bile would be seamlessly transferred to Obama if he became the nominee. The establishment media, by and large, reveres John McCain on numerous levels, and once Obama stopped being the anti-Hillary, and became the anti-McCain, he would become their target."

Digby: "As I and many others predicted months ago, the media is beginning to feel pressure from Republicans (and perhaps their own professional embarrassment) and are starting to go negative on Senator Obama. Rather than examining their biases and adjusting their coverage to be more fair and dispassionate across the board, they will now 'even things out' by being equally derisive, shallow and trivial toward his campaign. We've already seen the outlines of it in the last debate."

OBAMA: Let's Not Go Overboard...

Some liberal bloggers are pushing back against the Clinton camp's argument that Obama receives highly preferential media coverage:

Bowers sees a contradiction: "If Clinton is so well prepared to handle media attacks, and Obama is so poor at it, then why is Clinton's campaign complaining about unfavorable media coverage titling the election to Obama? Am I the only one who thinks those lines of thought are contradictory? [...] Further, it does not make sense to argue that Obama is untested against Republican attacks, even though during the primary he has faced attacks on his experience, on Rezko, on his past drug use, on the possibility that he is a Muslim, and general race-baiting either directly from the Clinton campaign or from pro-Clinton surrogates. Not only are those exactly the same attacks he will face in the general election, but when both Democrats and Republicans are attacking along those lines, shouldn't the attacks be more effective?"

Yglesias: "I'd say it's definitely true that, on balance, Obama has gotten better press than Clinton. Still, I think Clinton fans are going more than a little overboard with this monocausal account of the campaign. For one thing, one important exception to this is that if Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, there's no way he'd still be treated as a viable candidate. [...] From another direction, even though the press has often been unfair to Clinton about petty stuff, they have been very willing to go along with the idea that she has a vast experience edge over Obama even though it's always been unclear what exactly that edge consisted of. On top of that, the country's most prominent liberal columnist has been pretty consistently attacking Obama for months now."

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall thinks the Clinton camp's complaints have successfully changed the tone of the coverage: "I think the real story is a very effective working of the refs on the part of the Clinton campaign. Going back more than a week the Clinton campaign has made a concerted and aggressive push arguing that they've been the victim of systematically negative press coverage while Obama has gotten a free ride. Whether or not you agree with that claim there's little doubt that the effort has paid off big dividends. The last week's press coverage has featured a mix of stories on the question of relative scrutiny/fairness itself as well as more probing looks into Obama himself."

OBAMA II: If He Can't Face Lynn Sweet, How Can He Face Al-Qaeda?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama for his contentious press conference yesterday:

Ed Morrissey: "Instead of handling the questions calmly and patiently, Obama accused the media of having an agenda against him, and then angrily stalked off...[People] should wonder just how a President Obama would deal with the press and with the accountability that comes with the office. If today's press conference gives any indication, it looks like Obama has some temper and judgment issues of his own -- or that the questions strike a little too close to home."

Jim Geraghty: "Captain Ed notes that Obama answered eight questions before 'stalking out of a press conference.' When John McCain held his press conference on the New York Times' shoddy he-was-in-bed-with-a-lobbyist story, he took thirty-six. Glass jaw?"

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "An impromptu Chicago press conference turned ugly when Obama cut it off after only a few questions. [...] Many have wondered whether Obama has the experience and temperament necessary to make it on the national scene; maybe the question should be whether he can last in his home town."

MCCAIN: Some Endorsements Just Ain't Worth It

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the mini-backlash caused by controversial Rev. John Hagee's endorsement of McCain:

CBN's David Brody publishes a statement by Hagee in which the pastor denies being "anti-Catholic." Brody adds: "Doesn't John McCain just want this whole thing to just go away? Some endorsements can be such a painful thing. It's like if The Brody File was endorsed by Mary Kay Cosmetics. I wouldn't turn it down but what kind of impression does it leave? I like makeup just like the next reporter but...never mind."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The Brent Bozell in me assumes the mainstream media loves, loves, loves a story like this because it portrays religious conservatives in a bad light. On the Right, meanwhile, it's not much of an issue, though I do think it should be a moment for reflection. [...] John McCain could have done without courting this pastor with his anti-Catholic baggage. You know he only did it to help himself with evangelicals, and to any Catholic conservatives paying attention, it only antagonizes. I don't think it does him any real longterm damage, but I'd respect him more if he hadn't."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Press Mood Swings

The New Republic's Michael Crowley notices that the media is becoming much more hostile toward Obama:

"Picking up on Noam [Scheiber]'s observation below about Obama's tough presser and the media mood right now, ABC's 'World News Tonight' was a total disaster for Obama this evening. The show opened with a very positive segment about a momentum-filled Hillary: We see a woman tell Clinton 'you look so young!' A crowd chants 'We love you Hillary!' Then it's a substantive update on the [Austan] Goolsbee/NAFTA flap.

Next, an Obama segment which consists of a highly detailed look at the Rezko case, complete with aerial images of Obama's house and the grim imprimatur of investigative correspondent Brian Ross. Finally, it was footage of that Obama presser, including a few seconds of the candidate walking away as the Chicago Sun-Times's tenacious Lynn Sweet shouts at him that his campaign had been 'disingenuous' about Goolsbee. ABC correspondent David Martin's dour kicker: 'The press corps had a lot more questions he didn't stay to answer.'

I'm also told that CNN's Lou Dobbs absolutely went to town on the Goolsbee flap this evening, which could almost be worth a point or two in Ohio right there."

LEST WE FORGET: Who's The Real Rap Star?

Radar's Nick Curran:

"Thanks to NAFTA and the trial of Tony Rezko, yesterday wasn't a great press day for Barack Obama. But he at least got a little encouraging news about some meaningless endorsements from P. Diddy and 50 Cent. Russell Simmons said yesterday during his press conference endorsing Obama that Diddy called the Obama campaign and hinted that 50 Cent might defect to Obama because he 'didn't know about Hillary anymore.'

Obama made no mention of the potential endorsements yesterday, but did tell a bunch of high schoolers in Texas that he listens to rap sometimes even though he doesn't really approve of it. 'I'll listen to Jay-Z once in a while and some other stuff,' Obama told the youngsters, 'but I have to say that so much of the culture glorifies bling, and, you know, violence, and is disrespectful to women. And we've got to counteract some of those cultural influences.' This sort of talk, coupled with his Wacky D dance routine with Ellen DeGeneres, leaves Mike Gravel, who curses, celebrates drug use, and truly doesn't give a fuck, as the 2008 candidate most simpatico with the hard core rap game."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 4, 2008 12:43 PM