March 06, 2008

3/6: It's Hard Out Here For A Dem

Liberal bloggers continue to discuss whether or not the never-ending Dem primary race will hurt the party's prospects in November. As we mentioned yesterday, some bloggers are worried that John McCain is going to get a "free pass" for the next few months while the blogosphere and the MSM focus on the increasingly contentious battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Others think that the current scenario could actually help the Dems by denying the GOP a specific target at whom to concentrate their fire. If HRC gets another solid win in PA (which would probably guarantee that the Dem race goes all the way to the convention), will the netroots' worries increase?

DEM FIELD: You Thought This Was Gonna Be Easy?

Several liberal bloggers are lamenting the fact that the Dem race will remain unresolved for the near future:

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Oh, well, I guess that if we win in November, it will be the hard way. [...] I still think we can win the Presidential race this fall, as McCain has some real weaknesses and a lot of dynamics are playing in our favor, but it's going to be really complicated and difficult. [...] Congratulations to the traditional media. You've given Barack a pretty good ride overall, but when you realized this cash cow, ratings-spiking, newspaper-selling race might end, you turned on him with a vengeance. You had a good night last night, as our race keeps going, and you got to announce your hero McCain as the official GOP nominee all on the same night. You've got to be feeling happy this morning."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Does the prospect of a long, drawn-out contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spell doom for the eventual nominee? A lot of people have a sinking feeling that it does. [...] There'll be nobody effectively pressing the media with anti-McCain talking points. It also means that Clinton will continue re-enforcing whatever good lines of attack McCain comes up with against Obama, and if McCain starts delivering good anti-Clinton lines, Obama will probably start re-enforcing those, too. This kind of dynamic hardly guarantees defeat in November, but it's hard to see how it helps."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I have to say, I really wanted it to be over last night. Not that Hillary Clinton has any obligation to give up, but because people are so emotionally wound up in the My Candidate Is Awesome/Your Candidate Sucks mode that John McCain is getting a free pass. People are so busy hurling pies at each other, being obdurate and intolerant and irrational that it makes McCain looks statesmanlike and above it all in comparison. And that is a big problem."

DEM FIELD II: Enough With The Doom And Gloom

Other liberal bloggers are trying to look on the bright side:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I agree with Stoller, that one upside to this campaign going on is that 'Obama will now finally have to address the arguments that will come from the Republicans.' [...] I understand the worries about the primary getting ugly, clearly, but as ugly as it's gotten, there's another big upside to this campaign continuing on. [...] In state after state our candidates campaign in, they are building organizations and focusing on issues, which, I agree with kos, can only help us long term. So, to all those who wish Hillary would drop out, I say stop yer belly-aching and focus on winning the remaining contests for your candidate. If he really is the choice of the majority of Democratic primary voters then winning shouldn't be a problem."

Digby: "There is no shortage of money, both candidates provide some fascination to the media and until the party decides, they will remain moving targets for the Republicans. After all, they can't settle on a narrative until one of the candidates is chosen. One of the upsides of the two candidates we have is that while they are very similar on policy, traditional GOP attacks will have to be tailored differently. If McCain is forced to campaign against them on the issues, which is what they have in common, he loses."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Hillary Clinton is not destroying Barack Obama, blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins, the party is still in good shape, Republican members of Congress are quitting in droves, we're raising trainloads of money, and John McCain continues to be a putz. Let's stop the hyperventilating, OK?"

DEM FIELD III: Grab The Popcorn!

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are delighting in the length and the increasingly personal tone of the Dem contest:

NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "My forecast for the next six months: A long, divisive battle for the Democratic nomination that helps John McCain."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If the Democrats blow this election, as they now seem hellbent on doing, they really ought to consider disbanding the party. Some liberal blogger or reporter from the Nation should investigate whether the Democratic leaders are all on the payroll of the vast right-wing conspiracy."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "How incredible is it that [George W.] Bush and McCain are having a love-fest at the White House, and Democrats are at each others throats in an increasingly bitter contest that involves the hot buttons of race and gender?"

RedState's Mark Kilmer: "The Democrats are doing the internecine warfare thaang. They're spending money, bringing up issues, and all for every charge there will be a countercharge. (A tit for a tat, rat-a-tat-a-tat.) No tax returns from Hillary, and no [Tony] Rezco answers from Barry. [...] 'Tis a good time to have a straight-talking national hero on the top of the ticket."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's not just the fact that Democrats will spend the next few months going at it that is likely to help John McCain, but the nature of the attacks Clinton and Obama are making against one another that can be used against either of them in the general. Clinton has been hitting Obama on his lack of preparedness (while she acknowledges McCain's 'lifetime of experience'), on Tony Rezko, and generally being all words and no substance. Meanwhile Obama strategist David Axelrod declared today, 'The vetting of Hillary Clinton is just going to start.' [...] What is important is that all of these attacks involve matters of experience and character -- qualities that can actually have an effect on swing voters. By contrast, during the Republican primaries, the other candidates didn't go after McCain for being dishonest or unprepared to be president, but for not being conservative enough."

DEM FIELD IV: It Takes Two, Baby

After HRC hinted at the possibility of sharing the Dem presidential ticket with Obama, liberal bloggers are discussing whether or not such a ticket would work:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "We might be getting to the point where political considerations of party unity might force both Clinton and Obama onto the ticket for the fall. [...] Then again, after both candidates have decried the other's judgment and / or ability to handle national emergencies and major foreign policy decisions, does an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket make sense anymore? [...] One thing I will say is if Clinton wants to imply that she will pick Obama to be Vice-President, she should stop implying that Obama couldn't handle a national emergency. That is just disingenuous, since usually vice-Presidents become presidents in the case of a national emergency. If Clinton really wants Obama to be her VP, then she stop offering reasons why he would not be a good VP."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "The problem with a joint ticket is that no one will want to be number two."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks a joint ticket is inevitable: "After [Tuesday] night, I believe it is a virtual certainty that the ticket will be Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama."

CLINTON: Mutual Assured Destruction

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer HRC for repeatedly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama:

Drum: "This really is fratricidal in a way that's not excusable. [...] Hillary needs to knock this crap off. It's disgraceful."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The more I consider this, the more frustrating it becomes. For one thing, Dems, no matter how competitive the primary, should simply refrain from suggesting the Republican candidate is preferable. We're supposed to be on the same team. For another, Clinton's message won't even benefit her should she win the Democratic nomination. The more she praises McCain's background, and makes experience the centerpiece of the campaign, the harder it will be for her in the general election -- because McCain has more experience than she does."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee? And what the hell does our party plan to do on stopping this train wreck? She can't win, it's over, she doesn't have the delegates and can't get the delegates. She's hoping she can destroy Obama and step in after he's toast. And if she's wrong, she'll simply leave Obama destroyed for the general election campaign against McCain, the guy she has now said four times is more qualified to be president than our presumptive nominee."

CLINTON II: Having Fun With Photoshop?

Several prominent liberal bloggers are accusing the Clinton campaign of manipulating video footage of Obama in one of their TV ads, making the IL senator's skin look darker and widening his nose:

Moulitsas compares the two images of Obama and writes: "As you can see, the campaign ad has darkened Obama's skin tone, while stretching the video horizontally to give Obama a wider nose. [...] Classy outfit, those guys."

In a later post, Moulitsas addresses claims that the changes made to Obama's image were accidental: "Remember the 'RATS' ad used against [Al] Gore in 2000? The Bush campaign was mocked in its claims of ignorance because ad makers pore over every detail of their ads before releasing them for broadcast. There was a concerted effort by Clinton's ad people to make Obama look darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose. The evidence is indisputable."

Aravosis: "You'll recall that we wrote yesterday about how Hillary had blackened Barack Obama's face in a new campaign attack ad. Well, Markos found that that's not all they did. They also stretched the width of Obama's face, making his nose wider and more stereotypically African-American looking. Oh yeah, and then they lied about it, and got caught."

Interestingly, conservative bloggers are coming to the Clinton camp's defense:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Even if you believe Hillary would stoop to this sort of race-baiting, does anyone think the benefit she'd gain from it would outstrip the cost? [...] The left's chomping at the bit to demagogue the hell out of the GOP on all matters racial in the general election, so Hillary will have to do for now."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "The whole thing's just a preview of the race-baiting wonderland we're headed into if Obama's the Democratic nominee. [...] Liberals have been demagoguing race for so long, they can't tell the difference between real racism and coded messages that are just figments of their fevered, guilty imaginations."
• little green footballs' Charles Johnson: "What I see in these pictures is the typical color alteration that happens from transferring and copying video segments, which also accounts for the aspect ratio changes. [...] It's another nutroots mass delusion."

OBAMA: Now Tell Me, How Nasty Can You Get?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing how Obama can hit back at HRC:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There is one upside to this outcome, and that is that Obama will now finally have to address the arguments that will come from the Republicans. [...] I have no idea if [HRC's 3 AM] ad worked, and I'm not going to pretend any great insight. But if it did, and Obama's campaign has the polling data to know if it did, they should come up with a response beyond the one emphasizing his no vote on Iraq. And that response should be negative, and probably point out that Clinton didn't even read the NIE before deciding to send troops into Iraq, and now is acting like she didn't vote for the war. That kind of argument, that hawks are irresponsible, will work against Clinton and McCain."

Benen: "I have to admit, [Obama's recent criticism of HRC] seems rather mild as campaign attacks go. In fact, I'd argue that these 'contrasts' aren't nearly as harsh as Clinton's 'kitchen-sink' strategy used so effectively over the last week or so. If this is as far as Obama is prepared to go, he'll be able to argue with a straight face that he's keeping a classy campaign, but there are a couple of angles to consider: a) if voters yesterday responded to real negative campaigning, is Obama being aggressive enough? and b) is this only the first stage in a series of ever-escalating criticisms that will grow more intense in the coming weeks? I guess we'll find out soon enough."

OBAMA II: Win Pennsylvania, Or We're Headed To A Brokered Convention

Bowers sees only one way to save the Dem party from disaster: "Obama needs to win Pennsylvania. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, he will go on to win Indiana and North Carolina, giving him the winning streak he needs for general election momentum. Further, given that Pennsylvania is probably even more demographically favorable to Clinton than Ohio (an older population and a closed primary), it will demonstrate great improvement on his party, and serve as a knockout blow (especially if he has drawn even on superdelegates by that point). Yet further, it will have allowed him to build a truly national infrastructure, and leave him plenty of time for him and other Democrats to press our general election advantages against McCain and Republicans. However, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, we could be in a world of hurt where the nominee stumbles home to the nomination and where our general election advantages do not have enough time to assert themselves."

Yglesias agrees: "Basically, Pennsylvania is like Ohio. The differences -- more old people, fewer black people, more Hispanics -- mostly cut in Clinton's favor, with only the larger number of college graduates helping Obama. The bad news for Obama, basically, is that he needs to fight a big, protracted battle in a state that's very demographically unfavorable to him. The good news for Obama is that given how Clinton-friendly the state and, and the fact that Clinton can't overtake him in the delegate lead anyway, if he does manage to beat her here she'll have no excuses left to stay in the race."

MCCAIN: The Real Media Darling?

Liberal bloggers continue to complain that political journalists are biased in favor of McCain:

Daily Kos' Devilstower: "Sure, it would be nice if the press was detached and objective, but the truth is that all candidates don't get equal treatment in the media. The press is only human. When you stick them on a bus for weeks (or a bathroom for five hours) they're bound to develop attachments and dislikes. They create story lines for the candidates; form their own little narratives full of good guys and bad guys. Once they've decided which candidate is their champion, it's hard to get them to change. So good luck getting them to seriously go after John McCain."

Digby: "In case anyone wonders why the press has been so gleefully building up and then tearing down Democratic candidates this season, this might just be a hint. McCain media manlove knows no bounds."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "Barack Obama got seriously tripped up for apparently not sufficiently denouncing an 'endorsement' he didn't solicit from someone he has no connection with. John McCain solicited the endorsement of a complete nut who's got this long history of slurs against the Catholic Church and a lot else. McCain's sticking with Hagee and he's getting a complete pass. [...] It's pretty amazing what it takes to create a problem for John McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe Mark Penn's To Blame

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"It's worth noting that nothing about [Tuesday]'s results necessarily vindicates the Clinton campaign's strategy of effectively conceding most the states between Super Tuesday and Texas, and allowing Obama to run up huge margins, both in votes and delegates, in nearly all of them. It isn't as if the firewall strategy allowed her to barely stave off an Obama surge that might have succeeded if she'd spread her time and resources around. The Obama surge did succeed, in Texas at least, thanks to his momentum out of the Mid-Atlantic: He swamped her firewall and pulled into the lead, and it appears that she only regained the upper hand thanks to some hard-edged last-minute campaigning. If she could have narrowed his margins in states like Virginia and Wisconsin, she might not have lost the lead in Texas in the first place -- and more importantly, she'd have higher delegate and vote totals to carry into the looming argument over whose 'moral claim' on the nomination is the stronger one."

LEST WE FORGET: Monopoly: The Movie

Cracked's Ross Wolinsky thinks the upcoming movie based on the board game "Monopoly" is a bad idea:

"Aside from Rich Uncle Pennybags and the cop who says 'GO TO JAIL,' Monopoly's entire cast of characters (with the exception of the dog) is a bunch of inanimate pewter objects. How do you make a board game out of that? Will it document the thrilling rise to power of Shoe, whose hotel empire comes to dominate everything from Kentucky Avenue to Marvin Gardens? Will there be a subplot about Thimble and Wheelbarrow who are down on their luck, squatting in a condemned building on Baltic Avenue, where they can see the gleaming jewels of the Community Chest just barely out of arms reach? Maybe they'll go the serious route and make it a prestige flick about the actual history of Monopoly and Parker Brothers. It could be a gripping cautionary tale of hubris and lost humanity. They could call it There Will Be Board Games."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 6, 2008 12:39 PM