March 07, 2008

3/7: A Fine Line

Hillary Clinton has had a rough few days in the liberal blogosphere. The netroots are angry that she has repeatedly suggested that John McCain is more fit to be Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama. While most of the leading liberal bloggers personally like HRC and will strongly support her should she win the nomination, they believe that she is crossing a line by comparing Obama's qualifications unfavorably to McCain's. Markos Moulitsas has stated that his primary goal is "electoral victory," and to the extent that HRC undermines Obama's chances of winning the Presidency (should he become the nominee), then her goals are no longer aligned with those of the netroots. As MyDD's Todd Beeton writes, "There are ways to responsibly make the case that you're more prepared/experienced/insert adjective here to be president. This isn't one of them."

Conservative bloggers, of course, are delighted by the comparisons that HRC is drawing between Obama and McCain. RedState's Mark Kilmer writes: "Hillary, keep talking. PLEASE keep talking."

DEM FIELD: Electability, Shmectability

Moulitsas looks at SurveyUSA polling showing Obama defeating McCain 280-258 in electoral votes and HRC defeating McCain 276-262. Moulitsas concludes: "Obama does expand the map (what Mark Warner used to claim he'd be able to do as a 'map changer'), and puts more pressure across the board on McCain."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, thinks HRC is a stronger general election candidate than Obama: "Are super-delegates are going to be swayed to vote for a candidate that loses the trifecta of PA/MI/FL, but points to a delegate lead due to wins in Republican states like a caucus like WY and a primary in MS? I doubt it."

Open Left's Chris Bowers disputes Armstrong's logic: "There are other ways to win outside of the 2000 and 2004 paradigm. To insist that there is no way to break out of the electoral maps of recent elections is not only depressing fatalistic about Democratic chances, but it actually reinforces the Obama campaign's assertion about Clinton not being able to break out of the political arguments of the past. A new map is clearly possible, as long as we put the effort into actually running a 50-state campaign."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis also disagrees with Armstrong, but for different reasons: "The notion that Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) loses a state to another Dem challenger in a primary, and therefore they will lose that state to John McCain in the general election, is based on some pretty faulty logic. It assumes that all of those Democratic voters who voted for the non-Obama Democrat will now vote for McCain in the fall because they can't have Hillary (or will vote for McCain in the fall if they can't have Obama). Why is it not possible, and highly likely I would argue, that the overwhelming majority of Democrats (and Independents) are going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the primary AND the fall general election regardless of whether that candidate is Hillary, Obama, or Mickey Mouse? I know I will."

DEM FIELD II: Michigan & Florida, Take Two

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the prospect of re-votes in MI and FL:

Open Left's Mike Lux: "What we need right now is not for people to dig in and be stubborn, but to work out a deal that is fair to everybody. Howard [Dean], if that means a do-over with the DNC paying for part of the costs, that's okay. If that means penalizing the states' part of their delegation, like the GOP did, that's okay too. If it means organizing caucuses, and then having part of the delegation coming from the primary vote and part coming from caucuses, that's okay, too. The point is, there are a lot of ways to solve this."

Bowers: "I think seating Florida's delegation as is (105 Clinton, 67 Obama, 13 Edwards) and holding a new Michigan caucus (with 128 pledged delegates at stake) would be an acceptable compromise...Clinton's advantages from the lack of campaigning in Florida would be cancelled out by Obama's advantage in caucuses. Hold the caucus on Saturday, June 7th, the same day as Puerto Rico, and just be done with the whole thing. This way, we can avoid the credentials committee, and probably have a nominee by June 8th, at the latest."

Beeton likes the idea of a mail-in vote in FL and a caucus in MI: "If these two scenarios do come to pass, it seems to me that it would represent the fairest of all results. Not only would the voters of two key states be represented at the convention in Denver and in a way that has no taint, but it would also split the methods by which the contests are run, evening the score, if you will since on its face, a big state primary would be more likely to favor Clinton while a caucus generally favors Obama."

DEM FIELD III: Schadenfreude On The Right

Conservative bloggers are convinced that McCain will benefit from the increasingly nasty HRC-Obama battle:

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The two [Dem candidates] are airing all sorts of things that would be hard for McCain to dredge up and he probably would not, but once out, his campaign can refer to something that is already out in the public domain."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Obama] obviously has to get tougher and it's happening. The Politics of Hope may now give way to The Politics of the Usual. He may take down Hillary Clinton in the process and Democratic partisans loyal to him will probably stay loyal, but it will be interesting indeed to see how independents react to negative campaigning from Barack Obama once the general election draws closer."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Clinton's have made a decision to destroy Barack Obama because that is what is necessary to achieve power. It is already an eye-opener for the Dems to see the politics of personal destruction unleashed on St. Obama. Popping him on to the ticket in Denver won't heal all the wounds already and soon-to-be-inflicted."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "If [HRC's] resurgence continues, Obama's spinmeisters and lawyers are going to have their work cut out for them in May and June. [...] Forget Bush v. Gore. It'll be Clinton vs. Obama."

CLINTON: Hillary And Johnny, Sittin' In A Tree

Liberal bloggers are slamming HRC for a statement she made yesterday, when she once again compared Obama unfavorably to McCain:

"'...I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,' the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

'I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,' she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a 'distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,' Clinton said, 'Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.'"

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "A leading Democratic candidate shouldn't keep praising the leading Republican candidate in order to attack a fellow Dem. This is not only divisive; it helps the other team. If Clinton wants to argue that she's better qualified on national security issues, great, make the case. But this is the worst possible way of making the argument."


• Bowers: "To imply to Democratic voters 'it's OK to vote for me, because I'll pick Obama as VP,' and then to turn around and imply that 'Obama is not qualified to be President, but John McCain is,' is both contradictory, self-defeating, and, shall we say, not entirely forthcoming. Maybe someone should ask Clinton why she would pick a Vice-President who she thinks is not qualified to become President. Or, maybe someone should ask her why she wouldn't pick McCain as her Vice-President, since she thinks he is so well-qualified on national security issues."


• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Should we conclude that the Clinton campaign believes their best strategy for capturing the nomination is to convince the superdelegates/party leaders they must choose her because she's prepared to make it impossible for Senator Obama to beat John McCain?"


• TPM's Josh Marshall: "A lot of people are seeing red that Hillary's so aggressively pushing the Republican nominee's credentials to be president. And I can see their point. But I'm more surprised that she's pushing an argument she doesn't need to make and frankly can't make credibly."


• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "It's good to know that [HRC] won't let little things like jokes about her daughter being an ugly bastard keep her from kissing McCain's ass."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, love HRC's remarks:

• RedState's streiff: "I've watched a few presidential primaries play out, but I have to say this is the first one in which I've heard one candidate unfavorably compare their primary opponent's qualifications to those of their general election opponent. It is a counterintuitive strategy, at least, on the part of Hillary!"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Amen, Hillary, amen. We on the right salute your clear-eyed assessment of the candidates."

CLINTON II: With So Much Drama In The HRC...

Peter Baker and Anne Kornblut's Washington Post article about squabbling among Clinton campaign staffers is generating a lot of discussion among liberal bloggers.

Several netroots bloggers were disappointed to learn that DLC head Bruce Reed gave HRC her "change you can Xerox" debate line:

• Aravosis: "Nice to know that the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic party has the inside track on Hillary's talking points. No wonder it's sounding increasingly like Karl Rove is writing her anti-Obama talking points."
• Moulitsas: "Clinton has been silent on her leadership role at the DLC, since it's not the sort of thing that people like to trumpet anymore. Reed has been an enthusiastic surrogate for Clinton, but the candidates don't always get to choose their supporters. (Al Wynn, anyone?) But debate prep? Team Clinton has Team DLC firmly embedded in the campaign."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks Moulitsas is being unfair to HRC: "Having the DLC in the Big Democratic Tent is fine by me. I certainly would not want either candidate to cast out the DLC. I actually worry more about the DLC's Third Way Unity Schtick political advice. As [DLC founder Al] From says, there is a very close political tactics connection between Obama and the DLC. It is what I complain about constantly. Some others used to complain about too. Not anymore apparently."

Liberal bloggers also discussed Clinton staffers' hostility toward campaign strategist Mark Penn:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks HRC's devotion to the unpopular Penn reveals her true political views: "Even though everyone on earth -- including [HRC's] own staff and supporters -- wants her to ditch this guy, she won't do it. Because Penn's style of political skittishness is, fundamentally, what she and her husband think the lessons of the past few decades support. The strength of Barack Obama's campaign has forced her to shift to the left, but you can always tell that her campaign's at its most comfortable attacking from the right -- altering photographs of Obama, calling diplomacy 'naive,' getting 'tough' on Iran, warning that terrorists will devour your children unless you elect the longest-serving Washington hack available, singing John McCain's praises, etc."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay thinks the campaign's internal strife reflects poorly on HRC's leadership skills: "Seriously, when it comes to the Clintons and their top advisers, the drama never ends. And, while the Post article is fascinating (as are this one and this one, too), it's actually disturbing how many of her staffers run to the media to air the campaign's dirty laundry. [...] She keeps telling us she's a leader, but if this is how she leads, we're in trouble. It's no way to run a campaign, but it's definitely no way to run a country."

CLINTON III: Who Loves The '90s?

HRC's online critics are unsympathetic to her campaign's charge that the Obama campaign is "imitating Ken Starr" by calling on her to release her tax returns:

Yglesias: "Barack Obama's campaign wants Bill and Hillary Clinton to release their tax returns. The Clinton campaign responds by denouncing 'Ken Starr' tactics. But this is the point, isn't it? Clinton's people want to say we need a 'vetted' candidate, so we need a vetted candidate. It's not as if the Republicans have forgotten Ken Starr tactics, nor is it as if examining potential financial conflicts of interest is some kind of outlandish new development in dirty politics."

Moulitsas: "This 'vetting' of the Clintons, now that they've opened that door, isn't going well for them. So they're overreacting."

Aravosis: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Especially after it was Hillary who made 'Mr. Lazio, release those tax returns' a key part of her 2000 Senate campaign against Republican Rick Lazio."

Meanwhile, TPM's Greg Sargent wonders: "[It's] worth asking whether this gambit is about reinforcing Hillary's bond with female voters by invoking Hillary's severe public humiliation at the hands of her husband and a prurient GOP and media."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Money Gap

Pejman Yousefzadeh disputes the claim that the Dem nominee will have a significant financial edge over McCain:

"Part of the political narrative this campaign season has been the argument that the vast sums of money raised by the remaining Presidential candidates is indicative of the enthusiasm Democrats feel for the upcoming election cycle. I suppose that there is some truth to that claim but I find it a little bit harder to believe -- especially after reading this -- that Republicans suffer from a lack of enthusiasm so pronounced as to make them uncompetitive in the election. [...]

The ability Republicans have to amass cash -- and President [George W.] Bush and Vice President [Dick] Cheney will have their roles in amassing a whole lot more -- means that they will be able to coordinate with and assist John McCain's candidacy quite effectively.

To be sure, Democrats will catch up when their party selects a nominee. But that could take a while, from what I hear. And by the time it happens, any increase in the party's coffers may be offset by the decrease in the coffers of the eventual nominee since gobs of money doubtlessly had to be spent to defeat the eventual nominee's remaining rival."

LEST WE FORGET: Tough Choices

Stephen Colbert tries to get ex-Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich to endorse either HRC or Obama (h/t Nicole Belle):

Colbert: Are you endorsing Hillary Clinton?
Reich: No, I decided not to endorse this round.
Colbert: So, you're endorsing Barack Obama?
Reich: No, I'm not going to endorse anybody. [...]
Colbert: Okay, let me put it this way: if we were at a restaurant together and the waiter brought around the dessert cart, and the choice was ladyfingers or Black Forest cake, which way do you think you'd lean?
Reich: Quite seriously, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make a great president.
Colbert: Let me put this a different way. If I were a waiter and I were to offer you two different slices of pizza, and one was half-Hawaiian and you weren't entirely sure what it was going to taste like. And the other was plain with cheese and had been under a heat lamp for 35 years, I mean, it had seen everything. Which would you go for?
Reich: I don't think I'd be terribly excited about either of those slices.
Colbert: Which movie would you rent? 'Big Momma's House' or 'Medea's Family Reunion'? Be careful, they are both about strong women who are actually black men.
Reich: Um, gosh. I think I'd try both of them out."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 7, 2008 12:45 PM