March 28, 2008

3/28: To Madame, With Love

As we reported yesterday, liberal bloggers are angry that a group of wealthy Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which they appeared to implicitly threaten to withhold future donations to the DCCC if Pelosi did not change her position on superdelegates. For many bloggers, this letter only confirmed their view that Clinton is willing to go to any lengths to win the Presidency, even if it means hurting the party. MoveOn.org and OpenLeft.com responded by circulating a petition declaring that they "support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

Righty bloggers, as usual, are sitting back and enjoying the show. However, they're also directing a steady stream of criticism at Barack Obama (whom most still believe will be the Dem nominee), focusing on his connections to Jeremiah Wright and his liberal voting record.

DEM FIELD: Hillary's Slipping?

Liberal bloggers are looking at recent polls conducted by Pew and NBC/WSJ and concluding that Obama -- surprisingly -- has had a better few weeks than Clinton:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's becoming increasingly evident that Hillary Clinton's strategy to raise doubts about Barack Obama's candidacy is backfiring. Yesterday, the latest NBC/WSJ poll showed that while Obama's positive/negative rating has dropped a bit recently, from 51-28 earlier this month to 49-32, Clinton's has absolutely plummeted from 45-43 to 37-48 today. Who would have thought that during a period that involved the [Jeremiah] Wright controversy that it would be Clinton's approval that would be the one to dip."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "The problem the Clinton partisans face right now is that Obama didn't say what Wright said, and people are too smart to realize that just because you attend a church or are friends with someone, doesn't mean you agree with them 100 percent. (Just like you guys don't agree with everything I write, yet you continue to return.)...Note [Clinton's] 'phony' numbers [in the Pew poll], and that was before the Tuzla stuff exploded. [...] So Clinton sort of walked into a trap, reinforcing a trait that people already harbored against her. I wouldn't have called her a 'phony' a week ago, but now the evidence is mounting on that front."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks the Wright controversy will hurt Obama in the general election, if not the Dem primary: "I just haven't seen any numbers though, aside from polls done right after this broke, that Obama suffers from his relationship to Wright in the Democratic primary. There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against [John] McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story."

Bloggers are also discussing recent polls conducted by InsiderAdvantage and Public Policy Polling that show Obama leading Clinton by double-digits in NC:

• Moulitsas: "With Clinton looking past Pennsylvania to North Carolina and Indiana, it's tough to see how she can win the Tarheel state. [...] The problem for Clinton is that for the Democratic primary, the white vote will be skewed heavily by the Research Triangle's 'creative class' -- educated professionals who make up a significant chunk of Obama's base. [...] And given that African Americans are expected to make up a third of the primary electorate, I'm seeing a 20-point Obama victory in NC. Indiana, split between the half that's sort of like Illinois, and the other half that's sort of like Ohio, is more fertile ground for Clinton. But North Carolina? Not a chance."
• Armstrong: "Now that we've got a couple of recent polls out of NC, it definitely looks like a strong Obama state. [...] Again, Obama is not going to be hurt much by Wright in the Democratic primary. Black voters back him strongly, the [InsiderAdvantage] poll's wild card is that most of the undecided voters are white. [...] There would seem to be a bit of an opening for Clinton to at least close the margin."

DEM FIELD II: More Schadenfreude

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to enjoy the Dem primary:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Schadenfreude is an exceedingly unappealing trait. It also is utterly and completely irresistible. [...] The chances are increasing that there will remain enough residual bitterness to make a difference in what has become not a runaway election that favors the Democrats, but rather a close election that may yet be won by the Republicans."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This primary's length and even split is unique in the four decades of the current system. Only the Walter Mondale-Gary Hart race came close, and look how well that worked out for the Democrats in 1984. It didn't generate the kind of passions and identity-politics baiting that has taken place this time, either -- and it didn't last as long as this race appears it will. [...] The sight of [Clinton] begging her followers not to vote Republicans shows the disintegration of the Democratic campaign better than anything else. Have we seen McCain having to make a plea to Republicans not to vote Democratic?"

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau urges caution: "It's hard not just to pull up a chair, pop up the corn and enjoy all the intra-party bickering between Obamaniacs and Clinton supporters, especially when there are polls that show that a significant number of Democrats might defect to McCain if their first-choice candidate loses the nomination. But let's remember that we're in a very heated period on the Democrat side. [...] It's highly possible, after all, that angry and disgruntled Democrats who are now threatening to cross party lines might reconsider once a final nominee has been selected and the race cools down. And couldn't this be especially true given the absence of any significant ideological differences between Barack and Hillary...?"

CLINTON: Threatening The DCCC = Not Appreciated

The netroots are angry that a group of wealthy Clinton donors sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi in which they appeared to implicitly threaten to stop supporting the DCCC if Pelosi did not change her position on superdelegates:

• Oliver Willis: "The more I read about the rich donors who told Nancy Pelosi to shut up, the more angry I get. I may not agree with her on quite a few issues, but Speaker Pelosi is second in line to the Presidency, the first woman to hold her position and a figure demanding of respect -- especially from people who are supposed to be her fellow Democrats. These guys seriously think that because they went to a fancy fundraiser or maybe played a round of golf with the ex-president that they really are better than the rest of us. They have every right to add their voice to the chorus supporting Sen. Clinton, but they have no place, no standing, no right to order the Speaker around."
• OpenLeft's Chris Bowers: "The funniest thing about the Liebercrat letter threatening Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC is the inflated sense of influence these donors think they have. 20 big donors threaten to pull their support for the DCCC, eh? Let's just assume for a moment that all 20 maxed out to the DCCC in 2005-2006, collectively raising $500,000 for the organization. [...] In 2005-2006, the DCCC raised $140,000,000, and $500,000 [is] a drop in the bucket. [...] If Nancy Pelosi and DCCC should really be afraid of something, it would be if MoveOn.org threatened to urge its members to withhold money from House Democrats. In the 2003-2004 cycle, MoveOn/org members contributed $180,000,000 in itemized, hard-money donations to Democratic federal campaigns. [...] The simple fact is that by this point, the netroots are far more central to Democratic fundraising efforts than Liebercrats. Someone needs to tell these donors that the 1990's are over, and ownership of the Democratic Party is no longer the province of a select few massive soft money donors."

MoveOn.org and OpenLeft.com responded to the letter by co-sponsoring a petition declaring that they "support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

• OpenLeft's Mike Lux: "We believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination. If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts. More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for."
• Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis urges his readers to donate to the DCCC: "The DCCC is the body responsible for electing and re-electing Democrats in the House. By getting her rich super-donors to threaten to stop funding the DCCC, Hillary is threatening to severely damage our efforts to hold the House in the fall. [...] Ever single Democrat in the House, all 232 of them, are SuperDelegates. Perhaps it's time we asked those SuperDelegates who are supporting Hillary, and those who are undecided and inexplicably not choosing sides, whether they agree that it's appropriate for Hillary to threaten a boycott of the DCCC, effectively holding hostage every Democrat in the House."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with his fellow netroots bloggers (as has frequently been the case lately): "[Pelosi] claims to be neutral when everyone knows she is for Obama. She claims to have to maintain neutrality because she is co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. But she has repeatedly made statements betraying that neutrality, including saying a unity ticket is impossible and that the super delegates should overturn the popular vote in favor of the pledged delegate count. She argued against revotes in Florida and Michigan. [...] She has been as divisive and harmful as any other Democrat in this contest. She should do the honorable thing and formally announce what we all know -- she is an Obama supporter. She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. And she should be quiet for a while. She has done enough damage already."

CLINTON II: Scapegoating Dean?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing another group of Clinton donors for circulating a petition urging Howard Dean to either recognize the FL and MI delegations or promise to hold new elections:

• Bowers: "The reason this really bothers me is just how misdirected it is. In particular, the petition is addressed to Howard Dean, and the guy running it wants 'the chairman to exercise come leadership.' That's all well and good, but did it ever occur to these geniuses to actually send the letter to the people with actual purview over the matter?...Instead of sending the letter to Howard Dean, they should send it to the rules committee which stripped MI and FL of their delegates, to the members of the credentials committee who will hold jurisdiction over the matter, or to Nancy Pelosi, who will chair the convention itself. You know, the people with actual power over the matter. Oh wait -- doing that would require sending the letter to people like Harold Ickes, a member of Clinton's campaign and the DNC rules committee who voted to strip MI and FL of their delegates. I guess it would look kind of strange for the Clinton campaign to be sending petitions to members of its own campaign. So, instead of sending the petition to people who actually hold purview over the matter, they have decided instead to scapegoat Howard Dean. Stay classy, Clinton fundraising team."
• Moulitsas: "The DNC is captive to its rules, and Dean is in fact exercising great leadership by refusing demands that the DNC bail out Florida and Michigan from its decision to break the party rules -- rules that all 48 other states decided to follow. If Michigan and Florida get to flout the rules, then no DNC calendar can ever be enforced, which means that there's no possible way to break the Iowa and New Hampshire monopolies. If candidates can't be assured that a rule-breaking state doesn't count, then they'll be forced to campaign on those states. Dean has already said that the DNC would recognize new contests in both Florida and Michigan. The fact that both states have passed on that option has nothing to do with Dean or Obama (he's not governor of either state, hence can't veto any such legislation). It has to do with the fact that the states which caused these problems for themselves were unable to clean up after their own mess."

CLINTON III: She Ain't Goin' Nowhere

Several bloggers on both the left and right are discussing Clinton's interview with FOX News' Greta Van Susteren, in which Clinton asserted that "she has no qualms about taking the primary fight all the way to the convention floor":

Jerome Armstrong: "Clinton sounds ready to throw down over MI and FL, all the way to the convention. The thing is, she may have an opening to go there. [...Obama's campaign] may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates."

Conservative bloggers were somewhat taken aback by Clinton's determination:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Good lord. Even I find her ruthlessness here creepy, and I'm pulling for her...[Listen to] the edge in her voice near the end -- 'I. don't. think. that. will. happen.' -- when she practically dares the party not to seat Florida and Michigan. It's of a piece with yesterday's brinksmanship by her donors in threatening to cut off, to the tune of $24 million, congressional Democrats if Pelosi doesn't stop shilling for Obama. Does she really want a relationship with the DNC that's openly adversarial by the time of the convention? We want that because it ratchets up the sore-loser effect on both sides, but why on earth would she? [...Also,] how's she going to campaign for a guy who, by her own standards, is bogus if Michigan and Florida end up getting the shaft? Think you'll be seeing this line in any McCain ads down the road?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "This is remarkable footage of Hillary Clinton making her case for allowing 'every vote to count' in Florida and Michigan. On the merits, Hillary Clinton has a point, of course. [...] But her steely determination, her simmering defiance to take this to the convention if needed is almost breathtaking. (You can just imagine that same venom: 'We will not resign the presidency!' 'We will not give them the Rose law firm records!') She is simultaneously impressive, and downright scary in her 'we will not be stopped' resolve."

OBAMA: You Can't Run From Wright

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's recent statement that he would have left his church has Rev. Wright stayed on and not apologized for his remarks:

• RedState's Moe Lane tells Obama to "stop digging": "I understand that you're pretty much just another politician, which means (to quote Stephen King) that you lie when it suits you, but don't be this amateurish about it. [...] You chose to keep your mouth shut about your pastor's message for twenty years: don't go pretending otherwise to Fox News now just because your poll numbers took a hit."
• Jennifer Rubin: "With each new utterance on the topic of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama seems to confirm his own moral obliviousness. Worse yet, he seems to have disdain for those who are troubled by his own unwillingness, even now, to break with Wright. [...] Perhaps Democratic primary voters are immune to the implications of all this. Perhaps they still fancy Obama as a great ethical leader who is going to lead us out of our history of divisiveness and small-mindedness. Or perhaps they are just embarrassed to tell pollsters they are privately offended. But in a general election contest this is not going to go unnoticed. We will have to see if he can get any Republican votes and just how many independents will be irked by this moral obtuseness."
• Meanwhile, NRO's Stanley Kurtz thinks Obama's candidacy will bring the "mother of all cultural battles": "The transformation of the 2008 campaign into a full-fledged cultural battle is what is really emerging from the Jeremiah Wright flap. A president who identifies with Malcolm X? A man who grew up alienated from ordinary American life and determined to avoid becoming a 'sellout' by hanging with Marxist professors and radical feminists? [...] Even the Clintons can't compare with this sort of rearing in sixties-leftism and academic radicalism. This background guarantees a huge cultural dimension to the campaign. Pre-Wright, it looked like an Obama nomination would avoid the refighting of the sixties Hillary would inevitably bring. Post-Wright, post-[Dreams Of My Father], etc. it looks as though Hillary and Bill were only the warm-up act for the great culture clash of 2008."

OBAMA II: Time To Pick A VP?

Bowers thinks Obama should pick a running mate: "If Obama wants to be perceived as the presumptive nominee, then he needs to start doing the things that presumptive nominees do. Probably the most visible thing presumptive nominees do is choose a Vice-President, and so that is something he should probably do at this point. [Obama's staff should] make it known that the campaign is actively searching for a Vice-President. Leaks names. Hold closed door meetings with high-profile Dems. If Obama starts acting like the presumptive nominee, then more people might start to perceive him as such."

Moulitsas: "Here's my top three [VP] picks for Obama: (1.) Bill Richardson (2.) Kathleen Sebelius (3.) Chris Dodd. They've all got their plusses and minuses. But if we got any of those three, I'd be ecstatic."

MCCAIN: Forget It, Johnny, You're Out Of Your Element!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's proposals to deal with the housing crisis, as well as his economic expertise more generally:

• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "Shouldn't McCain know what he's talking about on the economy? [...] He just parrots the 'let industry self regulate' rubbish until you want to scream. Come November, Iraq is going to be important but way down on the list of important topics for America and McCain has nothing to offer on the key topic that will be on the minds of voters. What about the economy? What exactly does McCain have to offer? I'm not seeing much of anything."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "On Tuesday, John McCain attempted to address the economy by promising he would only do what makes sense and never be dogmatic. He then repeated standard Republican dogma by excusing the Fed's massive bailout of Wall Street investment bankers while offering nothing to its Mainstreet victims. [...] McCain is vulnerable on the economy, because the [George W.] Bush Administration has blown it big time and because McCain realizes he hasn't a clue what to do about it."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "McCain's mortgage 'plan' is almost staggering in its callousness. Keeping with the general sentiment on the right that what's needed to rescue the GOP from the depredations of Bushism is a more dogmatic form of rightwingery, McCain basically proposes federal intervention to save giant financial services firms and bupkis for anyone else."
• Ezra Klein: "[McCain's speech on the housing crisis] is a speech meant to show that he gave a speech on this crisis. It's not a set of solutions. Instead, he wants various pledges from kindly companies and to hold a series of meetings on the crisis. Hear that Wall Street? There'll be meetings! So calm down already! [...This] is the McCain approach: Straight talk from a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The L-Word

Ezra Klein:

"George Zornick [of Media Matters] points out yesterday's Washington Post article asking whether Obama is...gasp!...a liberal. 'What's so strange about the story,' says Zornick, 'and others like it, is that it never attempts to define liberalism, simply presenting it as a self-evident insult.' Yep. There's never a moment in the article in which the reporter says that Obama believes liberal orthodoxy X, and liberal orthodoxy X is unpopular, and this will pose a problem for him in the election. Rather, it's the very fact that he can be called a liberal, no matter how popular or mainstream his policy ideas, that's the problem. [...]

Presumably, being 'a liberal' is bad because Americans disagree with liberal policies. But it's hard to find the policy plank of Barack Obama's that's wildly unpopular. That may make him timid -- (coughcoughmandatescough) -- but it doesn't make his ideas divisive. And if liberal just means broadly popular policy ideas, then it's obviously not a political danger. Yet it's still treated as a political problem, even though the word, in this article, is basically an empty container."

LEST WE FORGET: Dancer Risks Everything

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- Although she stood to lose her friends, her family, and everything she had worked for her entire life, classically trained dancer Cassie Lisbon, 18, put it all on the line Saturday night when she performed a highly controversial ballet/hip-hop-fusion routine at the Chicago Academy for the Arts' annual spring recital. [...]

'It was like my whole life was just preparation for that one moment,' said Lisbon, who added that everything had gone silent as she stood backstage before her routine and suddenly realized that it was this recital or never. 'I danced the only way I know how -- from the heart. Because in the 'hood and on the dance floor there are no second chances.'

'I don't care what they say,' Lisbon added. 'It's my life, and I'm playing for keeps.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at March 28, 2008 12:50 PM