April 30, 2008

4/30: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

Political bloggers are reacting to Barack Obama's repudiation of Jeremiah Wright as one would expect. Most liberal bloggers are praising Obama's statement while recognizing that it must have been difficult for him to denounce his former pastor. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are arguing that Obama's remarks were "too little, too late" and that Obama cannot possibly distance himself from someone whom he knew for 20 years.

A growing number of conservative bloggers appear to be convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable foe than Obama, and many are arguing that she may yet win the Dem nod. Liberal bloggers don't look anywhere near ready to embrace Clinton as their nominee, however. While the netroots have been criticizing Obama for appearing on FOX News Sunday, they've also been attacking Clinton for making her first-ever appearance on The O'Reilly Factor tonight. Furthermore, liberal bloggers have been slamming Clinton over the past 24 hours for her support of the gas tax holiday (which they consider a terrible idea and yet another example of Clinton siding with conservatives). Lately, it seems as though Clinton is more popular among righty bloggers than she is among lefty bloggers, which is something we never would have predicted.

OBAMA: Your 15 Minutes Are Over, Reverend

While some liberal bloggers have defended Wright, many are furious at him for going on his media blitz:

• Digby: "I have frankly been a little bit confused by the reaction to Reverend Wright's recent comments around the sphere and even here on this blog. I thought most people in the Netroots were big Obama supporters and yet they defend Reverend Wright, which I find rather surprising considering what he did. It's true that after Obama's Philadelphia speech, I too defended Wright's sermons and even got a more positive sense of Barack Obama's worldview as a result of hearing what he'd said and listening to Obama's explanations for them. Other than a vague sense that he was something of a showboater, I was not hostile to to the man. But Wright's latest round of media appearances have not seemed to me to be any kind of defense of liberalism or the black church or even Black Liberation Theology so much as one man's desire to deny a rival his destiny. This was personal and I find it very creepy. [...] Reverend Wright called into question the entire premise of Obama's campaign, a campaign built on changing the very nature of politics, when he said, 'he did what politicians do.' There was no need for him to speak out now except to gin up the controversy at the worst possible time. Any person of sensitivity would have at least waited until this tough, hard fought primary had ended. It was a self-aggrandizing, personal attack and it says something important about the man."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "While I understood the calls for Obama to throw Wright under the bus, I was impressed that he didn't. But that changed [Monday]. I thought Wright's appearance before the National Press Club, and in particular the Q and A, was just appalling: narcissistic, destructive, and venomous. Part of it was the content: sticking up for [Louis] Farrakhan, for instance. Part of it was the tone (and here I think watching the video makes a big difference: you can't tell how much he's enjoying being the center of attention from the transcript.) But part of it was that I thought it might as well have been calculated to bring Obama down."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "I know many liberals might not think that Rev. Wright was much of a problem earlier, because they could argue the snippets used were out of context, and [John] McCain had his own pastor problems as well, but we've already seen how the GOP has generated nasty ads that they are using against him. Think how bad it will be by October. By coming out so visibly now and without restraint, didn't Rev. Wright understand that this can only hurt Barack Obama because of the sick right wing noise machine and a media that is not interested in covering the policies that will actually affect our lives? It's the 'gotcha' game and he's only feeding the beast."

OBAMA II: Well Done, Barack

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for repudiating Wright:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "In his Philadelphia speech last month Obama couldn't openly repudiate Wright without risking a negative reaction from voters, especially African Americans, would see him as an ingrate, willing to cast aside people who've become inconvenient. Now, however, as Wright goes around the country performing as a caricature of what many white voters will perceive as 'The Scary Black Man,' Obama has an obligation to repudiate Wright. Failing to repudiate Wright risks allowing the GOP (and until then presumably the Clinton campaign) to use Wright as the Black proxy with which to scare off white voters. [...] As long as Wright continues to blab, Obama not only has the obligation to repudiate him, he has the opportunity. This afternoon, he took advantage of the opportunity."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Wright truly crossed over into cuckoo-land [Monday], saying that our government created AIDS, among other things. That's insane conspiracy talk, and it's race-baiting (white people created AIDS to oppress minorities? -- give me a break). Obama really blasted him this time. Good. I appreciate the position Obama is in. It's difficult to see someone you once respected turn into a crazy man. A craven politician, Hillary comes to mind, would turn on that person (or constituency) in a flash. A normal person, a good Christian, would struggle with the fact that the now-crazy man has done good in his life as well. How do you reconcile the two? Politicians don't. Real men -- and real Christians -- do."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Barack Obama and his camp made the right political choice in having Barack Obama denounce and reject the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and not just his words) today. This decision was also the right thing to do. What Wright has stated now on numerous occasions, both in the pulpit and elsewhere, is appalling, foolish, offensive, divisive and delusional. Obama should have done this long ago. And while I am sure his Philadelphia speech was lovely, it really was not about what Jeremiah Wright had said and done. Today, finally, Barack Obama addressed the issue of Jeremiah Wright. And he did so quite well."
• Digby feels sorry for Obama: "Clearly [Obama] sees it as a betrayal and a deeply personal one. And so it was. So much so that I felt uncomfortable even watching it. Obama trusted Reverend Wright. As he pointed out, Wright had married him and Michelle [Obama], baptized their children, prayed with them over major events in their lives. Obama was very generous with him in his Philadelphia speech, offering a personal endorsement of his good character. And yet, knowing that Obama is fighting this ridiculous rumor about being a Muslim, Wright shows up at the National Press Club with bodyguards from the Nation of Islam and praises Farrakhan? Outrageous. I watched Obama today and felt very sorry for him on a human level."
• Oliver Willis is satisfied: "It's pretty clear where Obama stands, and the people who are going to keep saying things 'raise questions' are just McCain/Clinton types who are trying to whip up noise."

Not all liberal bloggers were satisfied by Obama's repudation of Wright, however:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama "cav[ed] to right-wing attacks" by repudiating Wright: "This also seems to represent a broader strategic shift in the Obama campaign. First by ending a longstanding boycott of Fox News, and now by denouncing Jeremiah Wright after eloquently defending him just six weeks ago in a speech that was read around the world. The campaign now appears to be caving to right-wing attacks it once parried and refused to back down against. Really, it is kind of sad, since Obama's previous willingness to not throw his allies under the bus in public and to not appear on right-wing propaganda outlets was, in my opinion, a much better example of bringing people together than the new tactics we are witnessing. Right-wing attacks against Jeremiah Wright are actually far more importnat in dividing the country than the likes of Jeremiah Wright himself."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton has concerns about Obama's "fitness to run a general": "There are a couple problems that this press conference aren't likely to assuage. First is Obama's statement that he guesses he didn't know Wright as well as he thought he did. 'The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I had come to know over 20 years.' That's a big problem for someone running on judgment. Secondly, yesterday Obama pointed to Wright's off-message press tour as proof that the his campaign was not managing or coordinating with Wright, I suppose to distance himself from Wright prove to people that he is indeed Obama's former pastor. What is does for me is call into question his fitness to run a general."

OBAMA III: Too Little, Too Late

Conservative bloggers think Obama's repudiation of Wright was insufficient and that Obama cannot possibly distance himself from his pastor of 20 years:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Too little, too late, and too lawyerly. [...] And as I said yesterday, I don't see that Wright has changed. People are just noticing. But is Obama just now noticing?"
• Michelle Malkin: "Try as he might, [Obama] simply cannot disown the un-disownable preacher of hate. That press conference yesterday renders the Philadelphia speech from March null and void. And anyone who fell for the Philadelphia speech (unfortunately, there were several on the right side of the aisle) should feel especially embarrassed today. Try not to be fooled again."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "So, was Obama just as naive as a child for 20 years, or as disingenuous as any major political figure of the last forty years when he denied knowing the real Pastor Wright this morning? Either way it creates a huge issue for voters. Is Obama a dupe, or just duplicitous? Do you want him in charge of the nation's security, making judgments about our enemies?"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "When, Barack, when did Reverend Wright no longer act like the guy you knew? When? Was it after or before you named him as your spiritual advisor? At some point in the twenty years of your relationship he apparently changed. Do you really expect us to believe you didn't see the change. Barack Obama was, in fact, still a member of Trinity when Reverend Wright first said the U.S. being behind 9/11. Barack Obama was, in fact, still a member of Trinity when Reverend Wright first said the U.S. invented AIDS to kill black men."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Even after spending 20 years being friends with Jeremiah Wright and listening to his sermons, Barack Obama assured people that he didn't know about his extreme views and that people were taking Wright's comments out of context. [...] Well now, Wright has come out publicly and affirmed pretty much the worst things that people thought about him. He's anti-white, he's anti-American, and he's a kook. So, Obama's press conference aside, then either (1.) Obama is so dim-witted and such a terrible judge of character that he actually meant what he said and just didn't understand how bad Wright was. [...or] (2.) Obama has known what Wright was all about for the last 20 years, at worst agreed with it and at best wasn't bothered by it, and simply lied because he knew the American people wouldn't support an unpatriotic, racialist candidate who despises white people. Whatever the answer is, it means that Obama isn't fit to be President of the United States."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The problem for Obama is that his books do not, in fact, support the conclusion that he is entirely out of sympathy with what we now know to be Jeremiah Wright's noxious views. To be sure, Obama has never suggested that the federal government developed the AIDS virus. But Obama's own account of his first encounter with Wright's preaching, as related in his book Dreams From My Father, reveals that Obama knew of Wright's virulent racism from the beginning, and that it was a racist screed by Wright that initially drew Obama to his church. [...] It is hard to see how a candidate who finds inspirational the claim that "white folks' greed runs a world in need" can fully distance himself from Wright's anti-white racism."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "As I've written before, the common thread that ties Obama's views to Wright's is black liberation theology, which sees the Christian mission as bringing justice to oppressed people through political activism, and emphasizes the racial aspect of oppression. In effect, it is an amalgam of Christianity, radical left-wing ideology, and black militancy. [...] The existence of this common thread does not mean that Obama subscribes to the worst of Wright's views, and I'm confident he does not. But I believe it helps explain why Obama found so many of these views merely 'controversial,' not deplorable."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "In the absence of a long and productive legislative career, Barack Obama has argued that his decisive advantage over his rivals is not experience, but judgment. Back on March 18, Obama declared that we were being unfair in concluding Jeremiah Wright was 'a crank or a demagogue' because we didn't know him the way Obama did. We were reaching that conclusion based on 'snippets' and 'soundbites,' whereas he could take the full assessment based on a close relationship of 20 years or so. He was, he assured us, in a better position to make a better judgment. Today, Obama tells us, he doesn't really know Jeremiah Wright at all. And now, it seems, we're in better position to make a judgment about Barack Obama."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Yesterday, Barack Obama tried to put an end to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, and probably at least minimized any impact Wright's future statements might have on the campaign. However, as more comes out from past statements by both Obama and Wright, it will keep the wounds open and call into question Obama's honesty."

OBAMA IV: Nice Job, Media!

Liberal bloggers are slamming the news media for its focus on Wright:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "This sudden obsession with Rev. Wright is, if you can get through the banging-your-head-against-a-wall part of it, fairly amusing. It's like the American media has just discovered -- OMG! Black people! And with religion!? Now, none of these pundits gave a flying, candy-coated damn about some of the most influential preachers in America saying vile, despicable things and being continually rewarded for it with political praise and power. [Pat] Robertson, [Jerry] Falwell, [James] Dobson, [John] Hagee -- there is an entire movement of evangelicals devoted to saying vicious things on national TV under the cloak of religion. [...] Wright's past link with Obama is I think almost secondary, at this point...certain segments of the media seem absolutely giddy at the idea of being able to hold this guy up and examine him, and the Obama connection has given them an 'in' to do it without looking quite as salacious as they would under other circumstances. It's a typical media Shark Attack Week, but with scary black people instead of sharks."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President [George W.] Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. [...] All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald, dripping with sarcasm: "I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we're a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; vested with the ability to command great respect and admiration from the other nations of the world; emancipated from the burdens of war and intractable conflicts which have toppled and destroyed so many other great nations of the past; and, most of all, we're becoming freer and more prosperous by the minute. [...] So it isn't as though we really have anything else to talk about besides Jeremiah Wright. There are some countries in the world -- probably most -- which have so many big problems that they could ill-afford to devote much time and energy to a matter of this sort. Thankfully, the United States isn't one of them. I believe it's critical that we keep that in mind as we discuss him for the next seven months."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Just to save time, maybe [Obama and Clinton] could each get 'two Reject & Denounce' cards in advance. If I lived in another country.....I'd laugh and laugh at how ridiculous our media is and how bizarre they force campaigns to be. [...] Each election seems to get more critical on issues, yet more trivial on coverage. In the last three weeks the ONLY policy issue that has gotten substantial coverage is the ridiculous idea of a gas-tax holiday."
• Atrios: "This election is going to be much much stupider than the last time. Last time much of the stupid was at least nominally about serious issues, this time it's just all about the stupid."

OBAMA V: Friends Don't Let Friends Go On Fox

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Obama's decision to do an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Rather than try and get Fox to back off a bit, Obama merely gave Fox a propaganda victory and legitimized a network that we've spent several years exposing not as 'fair and balanced', but as an overt extension of the Republican Party. And as for its viewers, 30 minutes of Obama will now compete with six months of non-stop bashing (like this). [...] Stupid move, and in the end, ends up legitimizing the network while they continue spending their every waking moment trashing his very existence."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Fox News is not a good place to reach Democrats, Independents, or moderates. It is a propaganda outlet directed almost entirely at older, conservative Republicans and exists to give credence to right-wing smears. Much of the blogosphere, led significantly by Obama's example, had been successfully making headway in de-legitimizing the network. Now, Obama seems to have thrown all that away for minimal, if any, gain. Perhaps most depressingly, in what seems like a clear cut case of Dear Leader syndrome, huge numbers of people online seem to back Obama's decision simply because Obama made it. And really, this has nothing to do with a broader principle of 'talking to the other side,' since there are numerous of conservative outlets, such as Rush Limbaugh, where Obama would never appear."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Matt Stoller criticizes the Obama camp's blogger outreach: "All of us have endorsed Obama, and have criticized him over [his FOX appearance], but the reality is that there was no communications with anyone about the decision-making or process that led to him being on Fox News. There is also no messaging around Wright or any other bubbling stories. There is basically no blogger communications going on as far as I can tell, the kind so critical to a good blog strategy like Tim Tagaris ran with the [Ned] Lamont campaign. The Clinton campaign does a much better job, down to little details such as inviting bloggers on press calls. Even the McCain operation, with a much less significant blogosphere on the right, is having McCain out on blogger conference calls. [...] Anyway, it's clear that Obama's campaign has not fixed its relationship with the blogs and the liberal internet space. That is most likely because their new media director, Joe Rospars, is a remarkably skilled logistics operator with limited bandwidth for communications. The Obama campaign could sure use a Peter Daou type. As the general election approaches, it would helpful if this logistical problem was fixed."

Moulitsas agrees: "No doubt, the Obama campaign would be much better off if they had a Peter Daou or Tim Tagaris type aboard."

OBAMA VI: She's Doing It Too!

BooMan defends Obama's FNS appearance, noting that Clinton will make her first-ever appearance on The O'Reilly Factor tonight: "I think the outcry in the blogosphere about Barack Obama appearing (after a 700+ day boycott) on Fox News Sunday is one of the most stunning displays of self-indulgent foolishness since the Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared at the National Press Club. Yes, I agree that a 100% boycott will marginalize FOX News and undermine their credibility, and eventually their audience. But they do carry the highest ratings in cable news and Obama's opponent intends to take advantage of it. [...] In the long run, Democrats need to come together and show a united front against FOX News. But there can't be a unilateral boycott by one candidate if another candidate is going to use the network's highest rated and most disreputable show to reach out to voters."

Other liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton for going on Bill O'Reilly's show:

• Moulitsas mocks Obama supporters who are defending the IL senator's appearance on FOX News Sunday: "So Hillary Clinton will go on Bill O'Reilly's show on Wednesday. But it's good! Because Obama supporters told me that going on right-wing propaganda outlets is a great idea, joining such luminaries as Lanny Davis, Joe Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, and Harold Ford."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I am with Kos, Fox should NEVER be legitimized. Obama was wrong to go on Fox and so is Clinton."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, who supports Clinton, disagrees: "I think it's fine. This is about winning an election and convincing voters. [Clinton] should make her case wherever she can. I disagree with the theory that people shouldn't go on Fox. I've appeared on their network dozens of times if not more as a legal analyst. My view is if I can convince one person of my position, or even to make them think about it, it's worth it."

CLINTON: Gas Tax Demagoguery?

Liberal bloggers were already angry with Clinton for joining McCain in supporting a gas tax holiday, but they're even angrier now that Clinton is launching a TV ad attacking Obama for opposing the holiday:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It's worse when the candidate knows it's a bad idea. It's worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it's the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what we have in the case of Hillary Clinton and the 'gas-tax holiday.' [...] I really don't think Clinton wants to win this way. She's smarter and better than cheap pandering. Worse, all of this reinforces Obama's argument that he's more honest, principled, and willing to tell people the truth, even when they don't want to hear it. Obama wants to present himself as a 'different kind of politician,' and Clinton's gas-tax attacks are making it easier for him to do so."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "This [is] fantastical pandering from Hillary Clinton. [...] I'd say there's approximately a zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton or John McCain actually believe this is good policy. It would increase oil company profits, it would make hardly a dent in the price of gasoline, it would encourage more summertime driving, and it would deprive states of money for transit projects. Their staff economists know this perfectly well, and so do they. But they don't care. It's a way to engage in some good, healthy demagoguery, and if there's anything that the past couple of months have reinforced, it's the notion that demagoguery sells. Boy does it sell."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Now [Clinton]'s lighting in to Barack Obama for having the correct position on John McCain's stupid idea. This is basically the environment/energy/transportation equivalent equivalent of Obama's anti-mandate fliers and it makes it very hard to imagine that she's prepared to try to do anything about climate change. [...] What's needed are measures that can increase the short-run elasticity of demand. Making federal funds available to increase the frequency of bus service and/or reduce fares to give people better alternatives to driving might work. Or some kind of program designed to facilitate/encourage the trading in of inefficient vehicles for ones that don't guzzle as much gas. I've heard over and over again about Clinton's vast powers of wonkery and incredibly command of policy, so maybe she should show us some with some creative thinking on a tough problem rather than mindlessly parroting John McCain's proposals."
• hilzoy: "[Clinton] proposes to divert money from the government to those same oil companies, while saving consumers next to nothing. [...] Of course, Clinton also proposes to pay for the lost revenues from the gas tax with her new windfall profits tax on oil companies. Essentially, she wants to divert money from the government to the oil companies by suspending the gas tax, and then take it back again by introducing a different tax. McCain, by contrast, is willing to let the oil companies keep their extra profits, deficit or no deficit. [...] In a sane world, Obama would get credit for doing the right thing here. His unwillingness to go along with this transparent pander is surely a better indication of his character than his taste in lapel pins."

Meanwhile, Stoller thinks it's "time to get a killer instinct against Clinton": "Clinton has become more conservative of late, throwing away her policy-integrity just to pick off a few more older white voters with a gas holiday scam. [...] I actually think her plan could easily be turned into one that is evil through political machinations, ie. a gas tax holiday goes through while the oil company profits tax is stripped out, but the point is that Clinton is running as a full-blown conservative. And why shouldn't she do that and go on O'Reilly? We have rejected her, so she has to find her votes somewhere. Nevertheless, it's time to recognize that she is an opponent of liberals, and act that way. Moveon and SEIU are probably the only groups with the capacity to do this, but basically, the Bosnia sniper fire lie needs to be replayed over and over in Indiana, and then spliced with this tax scam and the quote that her plan will lose 300,000 highway jobs because she will say anything to get elected. Clinton needs to be called out as a liar who is a weak candidate, and it is Obama-supporting Moveon members that could do this. Obviously the group would have trouble since many of its members do like Clinton, but honestly, we need a killer instinct here and not more praise of Obama. [...] Clinton is very weak, she's come after liberals, and we should just put her away. And if we can't, let's figure out how to fix this institutional lack of a killer instinct."

Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Stoller's assertion that Clinton "is running as a full-blown conservative": "More inanity from the 'Netroots.' [...] What a dopey thing to write. While I agree with Stoller's criticism of Clinton on the gas tax holiday, see [Paul] Krugman, some bloggers seem incapable of stopping at legitimate criticism and must jump the shark to foolish inaccuracies. Just dumb stuff."

CLINTON II: In Her Defense...

Pro-Clinton bloggers are defending her support of the gas tax holiday:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The gas tax holiday [is] the type of popular idea that Republicans continually cream progressives on with the working class. McCain came out for the typical Republican position of depleting tax revenue by having a 'gas tax holiday' and Obama came out against it, mocking the idea as a gimmick, by saying it would only save individuals $20 a month. First, by making the claim that this only saves individuals $20 bucks a month, Obama doesn't realize how out-of-touch and elitist that sounds to the average low-wage earner who would view it as their 'best day in weeks' to find a Jackson laying on the sidewalk. [...] There is some hand-wringing done by some liberals over Clinton's proposal to 'use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer.' To me it sounds like a good way to take off the table a popular idea and sync it with an equally popular idea, and maybe even make the tax code more progressive while we are at it. The average liberal arguing rationally about this issue just does not get how powerful a political issue that gas prices are right now, and how damaging it is for Obama to be on the wrong side of the issue. This isn't a rational argument."
• Merritt: "If I were a typical consumer and one who doesn't know from oil, energy or economics because I get up, get the kids ready for school, go to work, come home, make dinner, clean up, do homework and go to bed, I'd want a suspension of the gas tax so I can pay less at the pump -- even for the summer. [...] I'd probably be thinking like Scarlett O'Hara: I'll worry about the planet tomorrow, today it's about me. I'd vote for the candidate who promises me some relief now."

CLINTON III: Pansy-gate?

Several bloggers are angry that NC Gov. Mike Easley said that Clinton "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy" while endorsing her. These bloggers view "pansy" as an anti-gay slur and are upset that Clinton laughed in response to Easley's comments:

• Aravosis: "In case anyone has been living under a rock, pansy is slang for 'fag.' [...] So, Hillary isn't gay? Or Hillary isn't a weak gay? And of course, gays are something bad that need to be avoided. Now why would Hillary embrace gay-bashing to help her campaign? [...] Actually, she started subtly gay-bashing a while back. Remember all of her 'San Francisco' references? Then there was her top aides calling Obama supporters 'latte sippers' who only care about 'feelings' (i.e., they're a bit effeminate and effete). (Then again, look who's advising her.) It's ironic. Hillary is afraid to use the word 'gay,' and gets visibly uncomfortable when answering questions about gay issues. But using slurs for 'fag' doesn't bother her in the least. Hillary and her people will say anything to get elected. And if that means gay-bashing to win the bubba vote, then so be it. And her people wonder why so many have turned on Hillary in the past few months."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "She's on O'Reilly and her surrogate is accusing her opponent of being a 'pansy'. Classy -- but vintage Clinton. Never miss an opportunity to exploit homophobia. Remember DOMA? Remember doubling the discharges from the military? Remember inaction on AIDS? Remember the Clintons' using anti-gay marriage ads in the South in 1996? And yet the gays keep coming back for more. I don't understand why. I really don't."
• Firedoglake's TeddySanFran: "North Carolina Governor Mike Easley tainted his endorsement of Senator Clinton when he used a common gay slur at the end of his riff on how much he loves strong women. [...] Can we get a little 'denounce and reject' action from Hillary Clinton about Governor Easley's use of the word pansy at her endorsement party?"

CLINTON IV: Pick Hillary, Dem Superdelegates!

Conservative bloggers continue to argue that Clinton would be a stronger nominee than Obama:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "Assuming that the pundits knew what they were talking about, many Republicans started gearing up for a fall general election campaign against Obama. But now that Hillary's won Pennsylvania -- and now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's turned into an Eagleton-style PR nightmare for Obama -- those assumptions are starting to look a little less certain. [...] How serious is the threat of a Hillary comeback? Rush Limbaugh today called a temporary pause in 'Operation Chaos,' his effort to push Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries. Limbaugh says Obama may be so damaged by the Wright fallout that it's no longer certain that Hillary would be the weaker Democratic candidate in the general election. If Rush sees it that way, might the super-delegates start seeing it, too?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The premise and the conclusion of the 'Hillary, Get Out Now!' crowd is misguided (unless you are rooting for a McCain win). She can certainly win the nomination -- the superdelegates just need some steel in their spines. And more importantly, she would likely be the more effective nominee. Democrats concerned about winning the White House might reconsider giving the nomination to the guy who is losing races by double digits."

RedState's Mark Kilmer thinks Obama will still win the Dem nod even though Clinton would be a stronger nominee: "[Clinton] is probably the Democrat with the best chance to defeat the war hero during wartime, but she is not going to be the nominee. Period. The superdelegates won't be seen to 'steal the election from Obama,' as that will bring us riots in Denver amongst the delegates, not just the lefty protesters outside."

MCCAIN: Quit Yer Bellyachin'

Liberal bloggers continue to mock the RNC for protesting the DNC's anti-McCain ad, which criticizes the GOP candidate for advocating a 100-year troop presence in Iraq:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "It really is too rich. The Republican Party, who has spent years either sponsoring or cheering on ads that relied on distortions or outright lies to win elections, are outraged that the Democratic National Committee dares to use facts in an ad about John McCain."
• Willis: "Who knew that the RNC would bust out the wahmbulance so soon in the 2008 campaign. [...] The ad hits a nerve. And I hope it keeps doing so (I gave to the DNC for the first time in years in response to it). [...] The RNC wants a new standard for campaign ads: Don't run ads against Republicans if you're going to use their actual words."
• Moulitsas: "Hey, did you hear that 71-year-old McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years? If he got his way, we'd be in Iraq on his 171st birthday. What I don't understand is why pointing this out drives the right-wing insane. It's not like anyone is putting words in McCain's mouth."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obamafans In Crisis?

TPM's Josh Marshall:

"As I've mentioned before, one thing running TPM affords us is a barometer, a unique window into the collective minds of the different candidates' supporters. Those most apt to hit the panic button are often those most ready to hit the send button. So it's important not to over-interpret the evidence. But we do seem to have come to some sort crisis of confidence for a number of Obama supporters. It all seems to have come together in the last few days, even the last 48 hours. Certainly Pennsylvania has something do it with it; and I think Rev. Jeremiah Wright's new kick Obama in groin-athon is playing a big role too. Perhaps yesterday's SurveyUSA poll showing Obama still markedly behind in Indiana is somewhere in there as well. There's very little I've seen from this admittedly fragmentary sample that shows Obama supporters buying into the critique of Obama, more a sense of exhaustion and frustration or fear that he can't get the onslaught to stop or isn't responding to it vocally or forcefully enough."

LEST WE FORGET: Dilbert Makes His Presidential Prediction

Scott Adams:

"Here's the way I think the election is going to go down. Obama will get nominated, and polls will start to show he will get 95% of the African-American vote. This will frighten all the racists who hadn't planned to vote, and get them to the polling places, thus handing the election to John McCain, even if he is only being kept alive by machines at that point. Here's a little unscientific survey question of my own:

1. Do you personally know anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim?

2. Do you personally know anyone who suspects Obama might secretly hate America and is running for President to destroy it from within?

I know registered voters in both of those categories. That's why your next president will be named McCain. That's just a prediction, not a preference."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:47 PM

April 29, 2008

4/29: Eye Of The Storm

Barack Obama's tough run in the political blogosphere continues. The netroots continue to criticize the IL senator for appearing on FOX News Sunday, which Markos Moulitsas sees as evidence "that Obama is quite willing to score cheap political points at the expense of his base." Still, we don't see this incident as a major turning point that pushes liberal bloggers toward Hillary Clinton, since the NY senator has her own problems with the netroots. Rather, we see this incident as evidence that the leading netroots bloggers won't hesitate to criticize Obama when he steps out of line (as they did last October during the Donnie McClurkin controversy). Nevertheless, some bloggers are worrying that Obama no longer cares what the netroots think.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are in an uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's media blitz. Righty bloggers are savaging Wright and calling on Obama to denounce his ex-pastor in the strongest possible terms. How will the latest Wright controversy affect Obama's popularity in NC and IN? We'll know very soon. But it's worth noting that more than a few conservative bloggers are already writing Obama's obituary.

OBAMA: Covering Their Eyes

Obama's online supporters are depressed about Wright's media blitz, which they believe is hurting Obama:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "In case you needed my opinion to figure this out, Reverend Wright doesn't seem to be doing his former parishoner any favors, choosing instead to hog as much of the spotlight as possible, reiterate the most objectionable of his greatest hits, and I guess just see what John McCain can do with this. One supposes this'll lead to a more open breach between Wright and Obama, which might help the latter in the long run, but it's a pretty depressing mess at this point."
• The Huffington Post's Eric Deggans: "By now it's obvious Obama is deep in a sound-bite-fed, image-waged war. A man smart as Wright knows it doesn't really matter what he says. He's been reduced to an emotional image -- the Willie Horton of 2008 -- a boogeyman of black nationalism and aggression, used as a prop to make the professorial Obama look like a smooth talker hiding more radical inclinations. [...] Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama's pro-black pastor was the one who kept Democrats from presenting the party's first black nominee for president?"

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, a Clinton supporter, mocks Obama: "How about Jeremiah Wright this morning in the Q & A. Oh boy, talk about angry. Obama, having successfully kicked the secular warriors that jumped on board his 'movement' to the gutter by embracing Fox, probably will follow up by doing some sort of ultra-distancing of Wright -- the kind I said he should have done right at the beginning of this whole fiasco. I imagine the 'former pastor' becomes the 'disavowed former pastor' and maybe even 'former church.' The thing is, Obama is doing this with the conclusion in mind that he's got it all sewn up. He doesn't."

OBAMA II: Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

Some liberal bloggers are defending Wright and promoting his interview with Bill Moyers, which they believe gives a more accurate portrait of the pastor's views:

• Firedoglake's Peterr: "[The Moyers interview] struck me as a much more honest picture of Wright than has been out there in the media to this point. Wright's not a wild-eyed radical, but he speaks in the vernacular of the Black Church in ways that those outside might easily misunderstand. The Moyers interview, especially the opening, gave a lot more context that I think probably helped those with a bit of an open mind to see him more on his own terms than on the terms of the religious and especially the political right."
• tristero: "If you haven't seen Bill Moyers' interview with Jeremiah Wright, go now and see both parts. You will encounter a very remarkable man, highly intelligent, articulate, charismatic -- it's easy to see how someone as smart as Obama would find him so compelling. [...] If the man who spoke to Moyers -- and who's shown in long excerpts (for tv, that is) of his sermons -- is who Jeremiah Wright really is, the rightwing likely has committed a spectacular blunder in trying to demonize him -- and by extension, Obama. The more opportunities given Wright to reach a national audience, the harder it will be to counteract him, let alone brand him as some America-hating black power radical."

Open Left's Mike Lux also views Wright more sympathetically: "My minister brother and I were taking a few days back about the whole Wright thing, and he commented, 'I sure wouldn't want my parishioners to be held responsible for the stuff I've said in my sermons.' And that sentiment is true for every good minister I know of. What I was always told growing up was that a minister's job was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Bad preachers speak in mushy truisms watered down to the lowest common denominator. Good ministers stir people up, challenge their congregants' assumptions, make people uncomfortable. They should serve, in the language of the church, a prophetic role that speaks truth to power. [...] Good ministers say dramatic things, stir things up, and push people hard to look at what they believe and how they act. That's their job. To hold their congregants accountable for every word they say in a sermon is absurd, and shows the people who attack them for such that they don't understand religion very well."

OBAMA III: Obama's Doooooomed

Conservative bloggers are slamming Wright -- and, by extension, Obama:

• Michelle Malkin: "Is [Wright] working for the Hillary campaign? Is he angry at Barack Obama? Because he has got to know this is killing his spiritual protege's campaign. [...] A piece of work, this guy. A rude, racist, self-righteous piece of work."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I've always thought 'liberation theology' was nonsense, but I confess that I hadn't studied it enough to realize how pernicious it is until Jeremiah Wright made the news. There is a deep irony here: genuine Christianity, not Wright's hateful perversion of the Gospel, really is a liberation theology. Jesus said, 'You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' No one is liberated by being fed lies of the sort peddled by Wright, e.g., that the federal government invented the AIDS virus. To believe such foolishness is to have one's freedom stunted and one's prospects in life limited. Wright is a thoroughly despicable character, and one wonders how long Barack Obama can go without confronting the cancer on his candidacy that Wright represents."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Americans are left wondering: How could a man who seems so reasonable and so likable embrace a race-baiting radical like Jeremiah Wright for 20 years? What does that reflect about Barack's inner life -- and does it mean that there is a side to him that we're not seeing?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama's defenders will continue to say it doesn't matter what Wright said, Obama doesn't agree with his comments. But the problem is that since Obama has such a thin public record...all the American people have to go on are his speeches. But it's hard to take a leap of faith with somebody who you don't know very well. Therefore, when trying to determine who Obama is, this guy who within five years has risen from the obscurity of the state senate to within arm's reach of the most powerful job in the world, his close relationships take on an added importance."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Do I think Barack Obama, in his heart of hearts, believes all this nonsense and views white people as 'the enemy?' I do. Why else would he spend so long in a church full of people who believe these things and why has he become so closely associated with a reverend who feels this way? It would be like a white politician going to KKK meetings for 20 years and then pointing out all the 'good work' the Klan does when he's called on it, refusing to disavow the Kleagle, and saying that the people pointing out his time in the Klan were trying to 'distract' people from the real issues of the campaign."

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's chances of becoming President are all but dead:

• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "All this will be fatal to the Obama candidacy. Had he set an example of moral outrage at his pastor, Wright would be gone and Obama would have recovered by now from any backlash from the African-American community. But the problem is that by contextualizing Wright, Obama has lost any high ground in commenting about race, and essentially given Wright a blank check to say what he wants without being 'disowned'. [...] Right now Wright and what he has said to the nation are the legacy of [Obama's] campaign."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Jeremiah Wright may have just sunk Obama's campaign. The Obama campaign is off the rails. [...] Obama is saying he should be president, instead of two much more experienced rivals, because of his superior judgment. But what kind of judgment is needed to select Wright as a surrogate father figure?"

OBAMA IV: Time To Reject And Denounce

Conservative bloggers are (once again) calling on Obama to denounce Wright in the strongest possible language:

• Hugh Hewitt: "The Obama campaign is sinking fast. Unless Senator Obama moves quickly and decisively to completely repudiate Reverend Wright, his fall campaign will be doomed. (And even a complete repudiation of Wright may not save the nomination if Hillary Clinton stays to her own course and begins to talk about Michelle Obama's vision of America for the rest of the primary season.) [...] And we thought [Howard] Dean '04 was a train-wreck."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Wright's racism casts a backward light on Obama's original attaction to Wright. It is a racism that cannot withstand scrutiny and it is one that Obama will have to renounce in less complacent terms than the ones to which he has confined himself so far. [...] It's too late for another speech that seeks to transcend the controversy. The reemergence of Wright shows how inadequate Obama's Philadelphia speech was to the task. Obama could resign his membership in Wright's church, even though Obama now emphasizes that Wright is only the church's retired pastor. Or he could forthrightly denounce Wright. Wright himself seems to be begging for such a denunciation. It is a a consummation that Obama has carefully avoided, but it is one devoutly to be wished."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "If Mr. Obama cannot even stand up to his own pastor, friend, and mentor -- if he cannot even make a peep about Wright's hateful, divisive, racist message -- then how in the world can he be expected to show the spine, resolve, and direction to do so to people who don't simply preach, but deliver death, destruction, and ultimata penned in the blood of those whose security the President of the United States is ultimately responsible for? Mr. Obama has already said that he will meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among others, if and when he is elected President. If he lacks the spine to even tell a friend when he is wrong, how will he possibly come away from a meeting in Iran anything other than fully cowed, having -- through his silence or his verbal acquiescence -- given away the store, and made the U.S., the Free World, and the world as a whole an exponentially less safe place for all involved?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who's been a strong supporter of Obama, agrees that Obama must "disown" Wright: "Obama is a decent human being, and cutting off someone who has nurtured and sustained his faith and been a father figure to him is not in his character. [...] But Wright's cooptation of Obama for his own agenda -- his assertion that Obama's distancing from him is insincere -- requires, in fact demands a response from Obama. Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright's views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era's obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. [...] This is no longer about cynics trying to associate one man's politics with another. It is now about Wright attempting to associate himself and some of his noxious, stupid, rancid views with the likely Democratic nominee. Wright has given Obama no choice -- and he has also given him another opportunity. He needs to seize it."

NRO's Peter Wehner, on the other hand, thinks Obama can't "disown" Wright: "Reverend Wright is a torpedo aimed straight at the Obama campaign. It will be fascinating to watch how Obama handles it. But one thing he cannot do, based on the logic of his Philadelphia speech, is to disown Wright. Wright is, by Obama's own testimony, a part of Obama himself, and a part of America. Obama's words ensure that they are joined at the hip. It remains staggering to think that Obama spent almost two decades under the leadership of this minister of hate. And now it seems as if everyone, even John McCain, understands that the Wright issue matters -- and it seems to matter more and more every day."

OBAMA V: Real Dems Don't Go On Fox

Adam Green, a spokesperson for MoveOn (which supports Obama), criticizes the IL senator for appearing on FOX News Sunday: "It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX's Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. When dealing with FOX, you either burn them or they will burn you."

Daily Kos' Moulitsas also criticizes Obama: "So let's see...a right-wing media outlet taunts you for a few months, and the way to show strength is to cave in to those taunts? Kind of an odd approach. We've spent the last few years in the netroots working to discredit Fox News as the propaganda network strives for mainstream respectability. The more it is viewed as a legitimate news outlet, the better it will be at injecting right-wing narratives into the broader media stream. It's why we fought so strongly against the attempts by the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to partner with Fox on several Democratic primary debates. Debating on Fox made as much sense as Republicans debating on Air America. Or Daily Kos."

Moulitsas continues: "Given Fox's role in pushing several bullshit attacks against Obama (including the one about Obama attending a Muslim Madrassa while living in Indonesia in his youth), Obama had wisely steered clear of the network during the primary. Yet he clearly hit on a dilemma -- Indiana is an open primary, hence Republican crossover support could be key to victory in the state. And where do Republicans hang out? Yup. Fox News. [...] I won't pretend to guess whether this helps him in Indiana or not. It may or it may not. And since I've never put Obama on a pedestal, this doesn't knock him down. What this does demonstrate, and quite clearly so, is that Obama is quite willing to score cheap political points at the expense of his base, regardless how much it might embolden the very same people that are working to demonize him to the American people."

After a number of Daily Kos readers registered their disapproval of Moulitsas' comments (including setting up a diary entitled "OFFICIAL DISAPPROVAL of KOS stance on Obama and Fox"), Moulitsas responded: "Yo people, Obama isn't beyond reproach or criticism. I want him to win the primary and the general, but I ain't gonna keep my mouth shut and carry his water when I disagree with him. If you have a problem with it, you might want to go elsewhere, because this is the reality based community, not the 'Obama can do no wrong' community. The dude is human, believe it or not. What's funny to me is that the same people who have criticized Clinton for legitimizing Fox, or who helped fight to kill the Fox News Democratic debates, are now busy rationalizing Obama's decision to appear on the network."

TPM's Josh Marshall offers his view: "My take is that it was stupid for an unnamed Obama advisor to tell TPM Election Central's Greg Sargent that Obama was going to 'take Fox on' in the Sunday interview, since obviously he didn't. But I think it would have been even stupider for Obama to have actually done so. I'm totally down with the idea that Fox News is an immense pile of crap and essentially a fraudulent operation. And for that reason I think it's in general a good idea for Democrats to shun the network. Certainly, Fox shouldn't be hosting any Democratic debates since it essentially operates as an arm of the Republican National Committee. But once Obama agreed to sit down for an interview with Chris Wallace I think it would have been crazy to try to make it into some sort of 'take on fox-fest'. Totally, nuts. Presumably Obama wanted to introduce himself to people who actually watch Fox. And getting in a tussle with the moderator of their show would not have been the way to do it, especially since he's campaigning on an ability to reach across the partisan divide, and so forth. In addition, it's virtually impossible to have that work when the people you're 'taking on' control the editing."

OBAMA VI: We Get No Respect!

While discussing Obama's FOX News Sunday appearance, Daily Kos' BarbinMD notes that Obama hasn't appeared on Daily Kos since Sept. '05: "I would be remiss if I didn't mention the shout out that Daily Kos received during the interview. It seems that for some reason, the senator is less willing to take on our commenters than he is Chris Wallace. It's now been 922 days since his last visit. Is it time to borrow from Fox News and start our own 'Obama Watch?' After all, we never pushed the 'Barack is a Muslim, Marxist, un-American, latte swilling, elitist' stories. That should be worth something, right? Or is that left?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "BarbinMD asks a good question: why has Obama spent a longer time away from Daily Kos than he has from Fox News? The reason I ask is that there are far more Democratic primary voters to be found on Daily Kos than on Fox News. Only 7% of the Fox News audience supported John Kerry in 2004, whereas the vast majority of the roughly 1.12 million daily readers of Daily Kos not only vote for Democrats in general elections, but in primaries as well. Surely, with several remaining upcoming Democratic primaries, Obama would rather appear on media outlets where he can not only reach more Democratic primary voters, but where he can even control his own message by crafting his comments ahead of time."

Bowers concludes that the Obama camp no longer respects the netroots: "Matt [Stoller]'s basic argument, with which I am inclined to agree, is that the blogosphere and netroots have lost their leverage over the presidential campaigns because we have made our endorsement, and now there is no way to hold the campaigns accountable as a result. MoveOn.org and many of the larger blogs endorsed Obama a while ago. Now, Obama's more than 3-2 advantage among small online donors, and more than 2-1 advantage among online supporters, basically means that he has the constituency as locked up about as much as anyone [could] ever hope to have it locked up in a national primary. Further, the unwillingness of many to even call the Obama campaign on its about face from once freezing out Fox News to now appearing on Fox News, not to mention sending out mendacious missives about the purpose of his appearance on Fox News, only exacerbates the situation. Last year, [when] the progressive political blogopshere was still undecided and/or split among several candidates, its potential voter and activist support had to be respected. Now, because we have fallen in line and take beatings with a smile, there is no need to respect us."

CLINTON: Pander Bear?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing Clinton for supporting a gas tax holiday that she opposed during her 2000 Senate campaign:

• Moulitsas slams "Clinton's shameless hypocrisy on the fuel tax": "Honestly, why take the 18 cents out of the federal budget? Why not take it out of the oil company profits? The $10 billion in revenue the federal government would lose, at a time when our roads are crumbling and bridges literally collapsing, is only a quarter of Exxon Mobil's annual profits. [...] And that's just Exxon Mobil, excluding every other Big Oil company. Add them all up, and $10 billion would be but a blip in their balance sheet. So why do McCain and Clinton want to penalize the federal government at a time of record oil profits?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis chastises the Clinton camp: "Good grief. How are you people going to run against McCain, should you steal the election, when all you do is praise him? Any chance you could take a moment away from trying to destroy Obama and destroy McCain, just a little bit? But supporting tax cuts at a time of massive deficits? Come on. What's next, embracing guns? Oh. Yeah. I forgot."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton's idea is ridiculous and would just ship money to OPEC."

CLINTON II: Now They're Being Nice To Her?

BooMan notices a trend: "Why are members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy so nice to the Clintons these days? Rupert Murdoch holds a fundraiser for her. Richard Mellon Scaife has lunch with Bill [Clinton] and endorses Hillary. Sean Hannity spends all day telling his listeners falsehoods about William Ayers and his connections to Barack Obama. Rush Limbaugh is trying to get all his listeners to re-register as Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton. And Bill Kristol sticks up for her in the New York Times."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald offers an explanation: "When the Right and the media assumed that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee and that Obama couldn't win, the Right just 'loved' Obama, and people like The New Republic's Jason Zengerle marveled at what they actually believed was the astonishing (and real) phenomenon that no 'conservative writer [is] able to withstand Obama's charms.' Now that it appears that Obama rather than Clinton will likely be the nominee, that has, quite predictably, reversed itself completely: suddenly the Right hates Obama and has great respect for Hillary Clinton. [...] Karl Rove's army, including those in the media who revere him, aren't objectively evaluating each Democratic candidate to decide which one is strongest, which one is best, what they ought to do to win, etc. Their goal, instead, is to demonize and weaken whomever the nominee is going to be. Praising whomever appears to be the loser at the expense of the winner -- while issuing 'advice' designed to exacerbate tensions and wedges -- is one prong in that strategy. Why would anyone take any of that seriously, as though it's some sort of serious political analysis being offered in good faith?"

Crooks and Liars' scarce agrees: "In one of the odder transformations seen this primary season, some of the harshest critics of Hillary Clinton are now championing her candidacy with great gusto. Kristol seems to lead this pack of concern trolls from the vast rightwing conspiracy, but we've also seen Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, and Karl Rove among others rush to her defense. And then last month's bizarre endorsement from her once arch nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife. [...] Of course, the disdain for all things Clinton has not lessened one iota among these people. The annoying clucking sound we hear is only Republicans savoring the prospect of Democratic discord, their only real means to retaining the White House."

MCCAIN: Sorry, RNC, But Those Are His Words

Liberal bloggers are mocking the RNC for threatening legal action in order to stop the new DNC ad, which criticizes McCain for advocating a 100-year troop presence in Iraq:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Now, this is funny. Yes, the RNC wants to protect America from misrepresentations and falsehoods. So, what are they objecting to? The DNC ad that uses John McCain's own words against him."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "The RNC is really losing its grip over the new DNC ad of John McCain making his '100 years' in Iraq comment. I don't quite know how, but a clip of John McCain uttering this statement himself is supposed to be 'false and defamatory.' They're demanding CNN and MSNBC not run it. The whole thing must be testing just horribly for McCain."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "There is no 'falsehood' in the ad, deliberate or otherwise. The DNC commercial quotes McCain directly. It relies on his own comments, the context of which does nothing to change the meaning of his remarks. He believes the United States should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely, maybe 100 years, maybe more. He said it, he meant it, and Democrats would be insane not to tell voters about it. The DNC was very careful in exactly how it worded the ad, precisely because it knew the RNC would make a variety of ridiculous demands. So what on earth is the RNC going to sue over? At least for now, there are no laws against running ads that make John McCain look bad."
• Marshall: "McCain does not want to leave Iraq. Period. He wants tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq permanently. He made a big point of this during the primaries when it was politically advantageous to do so. And he followed up with a qualifier explaining that it's okay because our occupation of Iraq will soon be like our presence in Germany and Japan where nobody gets killed. But there's little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn't like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn't change that. It just shows his substitution of wishful thinking for sound strategic judgment."
• Marshall continues: "There is a way foreign policy questions are hashed out in quiet symposia and a way they are fought over in political campaigns. They are not the same. McCain and his surrogates are demanding something no one else gets: namely, the right to have their words repeated only in their fullest context and most generous, most amply spun interpretation. He wants his own set of rules, an election with a stacked deck. If the Democrats have any intention of winning this race, that's not something they can possibly accede to, or accept reporters going along with."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Jonathan Singer wonders: "By raising the specter of legal action, drawing out dueling press conferences, isn't the RNC drawing more attention to this ad rather than figuring out a way to convince American voters that McCain didn't say he'd be comfortable keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years?"

MCCAIN II: Release Your Tax Returns, Cindy!

Several liberal bloggers are pressuring Cindy McCain to release her tax returns, since "all of the couple's assets are in Cindy's name", not John's:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I didn't realize just how skimpy John McCain's financial disclosure was until I read this Moneybox piece over the weekend. [...] Can we stop pretending to be children about this? There's only one reason for a politician to make sure that all his assets are in his wife's name: it's to make sure that no one knows anything about his assets. It's not as if McCain is the first pol to try this, after all. Is the press really going to let him get away with this?"
• Yglesias: "As a married couple, John and Cindy McCain are multi-millionaires. But John McCain on his own is just a guy with some money in a Wachovia savings account. In other words, he's stashed all his considerable assets under his wife's name, and then proceeded to not disclose anything at all about his finances under pretense of protecting his daughter's privacy. It's absurd."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk notes that the media put pressure on Teresa Heinz Kerry to release her tax returns in '04, and writes: "Funny, how the rules change."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "I love that [McCain's] wife has a jet and let's him use it. But, he pretends she doesn't give him any of her vast wealth for his campaign. Her vast wealth is the reason he has a political career. What is in those tax forms of Cindy McCain? We need to know."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Wright's Intentional Monkey-Wrenching

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle thinks Rev. Wright wants Obama to lose:

"I, too, think Wright is digging center stage. But I also suspect he specifically wants to tank Obama's candidacy. I mean, this is a man who has spent a fair portion of his career spreading the message that blacks cannot get a fair shake in this country; that America was, is, and always will be fundamentally racist; that the U.S. government in particular has it in for blacks. So what happens to all that if suddenly a black man -- and not just any black man, but one who has been counseled by Wright and so cannot be dismissed as some pathetic Uncle Tom -- is elected president? With Obama in office, it suddenly becomes much harder for Wright to rage against the evil of America in general and the government in particular. Certainly, he'd have a harder time spinning new tales along the lines of AIDs was a government creation aimed at wiping out the black race. But if Obama loses, Wright's ugly vision of America is confirmed yet again, and so he can keep on fighting the good fight at even greater volume and with even uglier rhetoric. How nice for him. How sad for the rest of the country."

LEST WE FORGET: Conversations My Parents Must Have Had While Planning To Raise A Child

McSweeney's' Jen Statsky:

DAD: We should talk very loudly about the truth about Santa Claus.
MOM: Yes, and let's not make any attempt whatsoever to disguise Santa's handwriting from our own.

MOM: I'll make sure to give her a haircut that matches mine. Mine in 1972, that is.
DAD: Great. I'll wear an awkward comb-over.

DAD: I think I'll always be a little bit weirder than necessary around her friends. Especially the "cool" ones who are just over to copy notes for Ms. Reardon's AP Physics midterm.
MOM: Sounds good. I'll always talk one decibel louder than a normal person.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

April 28, 2008

4/28: Barack-ed On All Sides

Barack Obama has had a rough weekend in the political blogosphere. First, the netroots are criticizing him for appearing on FOX News Sunday and "legitimizing" FOX, which they consider "a Republican propaganda outlet". Matt Stoller was particularly incensed by Obama's appearance on the show, and complained, "You can't trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions." Meanwhile, Jeremiah Wright's media blitz has prompted a fresh round of outraged denunciations from conservative bloggers. Righty bloggers think Obama gave John McCain a huge opening by calling his relationship with Wright "a legitimate political issue" during his FOX interview, and they're pleased that McCain is starting to go after Wright himself. With about a week to go before the NC and IN primaries, Obama can't be pleased that Wright is back in the spotlight.

OBAMA: Legitimizing Fox News?

Several liberal bloggers are upset that Obama (a.) agreed to appear on FOX News Sunday in the first place, and (b.) didn't use the interview as an opportunity to criticize Fox News more strongly:

• Daily Kos' smintheus: "Fox is a Republican propaganda outlet that aspires to be granted a respectability it refuses to earn. More to the point, Fox has been down in the dirt spreading malicious and false rumors about Obama for well over a year...for example, the ridiculous and anyway irrelevant 'information' that the presidential candidate is a Muslim. The right approach to an interview on Fox, if Obama really thought it acceptable to reward rumor-mongerers, would have been to use the appearance to denounce the network's lack of integrity, enumerate the lies it has propagated, and demand that Chris Wallace acknowledge that they're false. That's how one deals with bullying, by publicly humiliating the perpetrators -- and [Rupert] Murdoch's network is nothing if not a Republican bully-boy. Trying to persuade a Fox 'News' personality that he's reasonable and moderate is just about the last thing Barack Obama should have been doing on that of all networks."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Obama didn't take on Fox at all in any meaningful sense. [...] Obama definitely pushed back hard on some of Chris Wallace's questions, but at no point did he draw attention to Fox's spreading of lies about him or critique the network in a general sense. Obama had a perfect opening to do this, too. Wallace pressed him repeatedly about Jeremiah Wright and the bogus 'flag pin' nonsense -- a perfect set-up for Obama to point out that Fox had obsessed about both these issues to an obscene degree and that Fox had been at the forefront of spreading the Obama-is-a-Muslim lies."
• Open Left's Stoller: "You can't trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions."
• In a separate post, Stoller complains that the netroots "don't believe in standing up for ourselves": "I think lost in all this nonsense is just how weakened we have become in all this. When we accept lies from our leaders and openly dismissive knocks from them, it destroys our core argument that Democrats need to have integrity and to stand up for themselves. [...] If you don't like that Obama steps on you, speak out. [Hillary] Clinton at least has a reason to step on us since many of us have openly called her a Republican. It's a fight, and we didn't back her. Instead we back someone that openly lies to us and thinks nothing of it. [...] It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimidating her supporters at caucuses. We should be stuffing ads discussing her Bosnia sniper fire in Indiana. But we don't believe in standing up for ourselves."

Unsurprisingly, pro-Clinton bloggers also criticized Obama:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "This is basically Obama kicking the 'dailykos-americablog-moveon-thenation' secular warrior partisans out of the way to make room for the pivot to 'the center' (and recapture the image of a part of his base he previously held). Its the anti-thesis of the belief that we are in such a partisan-age that base politics is what wins a GE, not Obama (nor McCain, for that matter) believe it. [...] I doubt there are that many hardcore partisans, the ones that keep dreaming Obama's movement has anything to do with a fighting partisan position, will abandon him over this anytime soon, they've still got Clinton around to hate on."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The Obama camp probably was thinking 'do we need another Media camp to join Lou Dobbs in an all out attack on Barack Obama?' and they apparently convinced Obama to play it safe. After all, he is still in the driver's seat for the nomination. Besides, if it is not clear by now, it should be, Obama is NOT a fighter. Period. It is time to stop expecting him to be one. I wanted him to become one. He never did. And he never will. If you want a fighter, then Obama is not your man."

OBAMA II: Enough With The Faux Outrage!

Several of Obama's online supporters are defending the IL senator:

• BooMan: "Going on FOX News says nothing about Obama's ideas and proposals for dealing with mass communications. It's just a violation of the the blogosphere's 'strategy' for delegitimizing FOX News. I don't disagree with the underlying strateg[y]. But that's all [it is]. It's takes a tremendous amount of self-important chutzpah to decide you are going to reject a candidate for using a different political strategy than the one you advocate. If a candidate's political strategy involves pandering to fear and xenophobia, or racism, or misogyny and homophobia, then I can understand why their strategy might, in itself, cause a person to foreswear any support. But an appearance on FOX News Sunday...? [...] We should have learned by now that the Obama campaign is better at strategy than we are at giving strategic advice. If Obama had followed the blogopshere's advice he would have been marginalized long ago as a fringe candidate of the far left. Let them do the strategizing. They seem to know what they're doing."
• Oliver Willis: "A few months ago I wrote about how I really really want the president of the United States to be someone who is the national leader of the country and not just a party chairman. I feel the need to point this out again in the middle of some of the typical blogosphere whining over Sen. Obama's appearance Sunday on Fox News. There are certain things I demand out of a Democratic candidate, but I don't labor under the pretense that the person is going to check, check, check down the line for the progressive movement. Do I want them to sound like a Republican and echo conservative phrasing? No. But to act as if a deviation from the line will cause the universe to collapse on itself? Come on."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "One of the most striking things I discovered about Obama last year was how many conservatives and Republicans who have encountered or met or engaged him over the years think highly of him. When the partisan right tries to swift-boat him with any number of polarizing clips, smears and half-truths, his best bet is to counter them directly, in the lion's den. He should do more of these interviews. He should go on [Bill] O'Reilly and [Sean] Hannity. His ability to talk to and engage those on the other side of the aisle is real. It's an asset he shouldn't hide."

OBAMA III: Giving Credit Where Credit's Due

To say that conservative bloggers fiercely oppose Obama would be an understatement. Nevertheless, some were (mildly) impressed by his performance on FOX News Sunday:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama showed, once again, that he is a rare political talent. In contrast with his uncharacteristically poor performance in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama handled questions about Wright, [Bill] Ayers, flag lapel pins -- all the hot button topics he would rather avoid -- deftly. Rather than showing resentment at being asked about such things, Obama acknowledged that voters want to know who he is, and that these topics are therefore fair game. He skillfully deflected questions on these as well as more substantive issues. [...] I've said that I think John McCain is the early favorite to beat either Obama or Hillary Clinton, but Obama's performance today was a reminder of how formidable he will be in the fall, assuming that he gets the nomination -- and that's apart from the fact that he is the greatest money-machine in the history of American politics.""
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Make no mistake. If Barack is the nominee, he will be a formidable opponent. Not because of his policies -- if anything, they are his weak point. But he comes across as good humored, reasonable, likable. He is able to express pretty left wing ideas in ways that go far in making them sound sensible. [...] The challenge for Republicans will be finding a way to make sure that the American people look past the 'willingness to listen' (i.e. Barack's genuinely likable demeanor) and understand that he subscribes to the kind of doctrinaire left-wing liberalism that guarantees that, after the 'listening' is over, the decisions will be uniformly left-wing."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Give Barack Obama this: he performed a lot better on Fox News Sunday today than he did in the debate on April 16th. He stammered less when challenged, allowed his considerable personal warmth to surface, and kept his annoyance and anger in check. On the other hand, he offered about the same level of commitment to his answers as he did in Philadelphia, and gave at least a couple of whoppers."

OBAMA IV: How Does That Albatross Feel, Barack?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright's media blitz has prompted conservative bloggers to step up their criticism of the controversial pastor -- and, by extension, Obama:

• Michelle Malkin: "What a weekend it was for Jeremiah 'AmeriKKKa' Wright. The jet-setting race-monger has now been proclaimed 'hottest brother in America.' [...] In Dallas, he lamented his 'public crucixion' before an audience of 4,000 supporters at Friendship-West Baptist Church. In Detroit tonight at the NAACP's Church of the Racial Hustle, Wright patted himself on the back for his 'descriptive' powers of an America that he believes deserved 9/11. It's not 'divisive,' you see, to shout 'God damn America' with your veins popping at the pulpit. That's just 'descriptive.' And anyone who says otherwise is a God-damned racist!"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Reverend Wright, by the way, says he is not running for the White House, he's running 'for Jesus.' That must be the black Jesus who was killed by the Romans, who were Italians, who were Europeans, who were white people, not actually the Jewish guy Reverend Wright's friends Calypso Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Kadafi would denounce for being a Jew."
• Platt Liebau: "Reading and listening to the Wright material makes it hard not to feel sorry for the minister, who obviously is trapped under a load of bitterness and resentment for America and so many of its people. His insistence that hatred is being directed toward African-Americans seems uncomfortably like projection. [...] Most troubling of all, Wright's statement about Barack 'do[ing] what politicians do' raises again some uncomfortable questions about the candidate. One has to wonder: In his comfortable certainty that Barack is distancing himself for political reasons alone, what does Rev. Wright know about him that we don't know?"
• Hinderaker: "[Wright] is a despicable human being, and the fact that has been ordained, apparently, is a disgrace. [...] I don't know anyone who would sit still for a minister who persistently abused the pulpit to preach hate instead of the Gospel. As a Christian, I am outraged that 'Reverend' Wright has hijacked my faith to preach hate and to sow falsehood. How Barack Obama could have participated in this charade for twenty years, and then held himself out as someone fit to lead this nation, is inexplicable."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Permit me to propose a new rule: If your mentor of 20 years has ever declared the United States to be 'the same as al-Qaeda, under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!' you are ineligible for the Presidency."

MCCAIN: 'Cause Nothing Says "Working Class" Like A Private Jet

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Barry Meier's and Margot Williams' article in yesterday's New York Times, which describes how McCain used his wife's corporate jet at a reduced rate for seven months:

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "The New York Times just posted a blockbuster online (set to print Sunday) that exposes two more broken McCain pledges: to not to fly on corporate jets, and to not exploit his wife's wealth for campaign advantage. First, the campaign finance side -- by exploiting a loophole left open by the non-functioning FEC, McCain flew for months on a corporate jet owned by his wife's company, but only paid a fraction of the cost. [...] Not only is he exploiting a loophole to save millions, he's actually going back on an earlier pledge. In early 2007, McCain's campaign swore off the practice of using corporate jets."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "As the fact that he's married to a woman with her own private jet demonstrates, John McCain has a nine-figure lifestyle. Naturally, this puts him in the ideal position for a Republican in that he can say things about his likely Democratic opponent, the mixed-race child of a single mother, who worked as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago [...]: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues.' I'm sure the media will get around to pointing out this rather bizarre and laughable statement as soon as they get done snipping Jeremiah Wright quotes out of entire sentences and other such non-barbecue related matters."
• Singer: "While we're on the subject of elitism and insensitivity to hardworking Americans by presidential candidates, perhaps it would be worth it to look directly at McCain himself. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee tapped into his wife's immense wealth -- estimated at $100 million -- to enable him to traipse around the country in an opulent corporate jet, at the same time as refusing to disclose information on his spouse's income (as did every other presidential candidate in the race). Not only has McCain relied on his heiress wife to finance his campaign's travel expenses, the Arizona Republican has also raided the public till in a way not clearly allowed by Senate ethics regulations to help pay for his trip to a campaign fundraiser in London, of all places. What's more, McCain reaped the benefits of the public financing system, which he had opted into, only to unilaterally pull out of the program in a way, again, not clearly allowed by federal campaign finance law -- a body of law he helped shape. Remind me again which candidate is elitist? Which one looks down on the hardworking American man and woman paying their fair share in taxes?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Cindy McCain has a private jet. That's interesting enough. But, John McCain used his wife's private jet to campaign around the country. And, she gave him a sweetheart deal -- but the McCain campaign says her money doesn't help his campaign. They're lying. Cindy McCain has been footing the bill for her husband's political career from the very beginning -- right after McCain dumped his first wife to marry Cindy. She needs to release her tax returns."

Atrios wonders why this story didn't break earlier: "Regarding the NYT story about McCain using his wife's plane for campaign purposes, what took so long? I mean, all of the members of the press's sycophant express have been following him around like needy puppies for months, as commonly repeated reports about McCain 'flying coach' floated around."

MCCAIN II: What Happened To Your Sense Of Honor, Senator?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for explicitly linking Obama to Hamas on a conference call with conservative bloggers:

"'...I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,' said McCain. 'So apparently has [Sandanista leader] Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare...If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.'"

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The common wisdom among many is that in the case that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, the GOP hit machine will work as follows: A Republican crosses the line in attacking Obama, the media repeats the attacks over and over and over again in questioning whether it is right for the attacks to be put forward, John McCain quasi-denounces the attack, then a subsequent round of discussion (and replaying the attacks) goes on in the media. In such a situation, the attacks get out without McCain looking bad. Indeed, we've seen such a game play out surrounding an attack ad revolving on Reverend Wright that the North Carolina Republican Party is attempting to put on the air. [...] Problems arise, however, when the candidate himself takes a dive in the mud. And that's exactly what McCain does here, suggesting implausibly and laughably that Obama is the candidate of dictators and terrorists. For a politician who has hung his hat on the term 'honor' for so long, this isn't exactly an honorable campaign tactic. And it's a tactic that will likely backfire."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "We saw the same tactic used by Bush-Cheney '04 against John Kerry, when the right-wing noise machine claimed that al-Qaeda wanted Kerry to win the White House. McCain claimed last week that he wanted to run a campaign 'that is worthy of the people we seek to serve.' It's apparent from McCain's cheap fear-mongering and distortions that he doesn't think much of the people he seeks to serve at all."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There are plenty of John McCains. And Obama's got to figure out how to respond to this 'my opponent is the terrorist candidate' stuff. But that's his problem. And it'll be a test of him to see how he responds because there will always be McCain types in the political arena and being able to stand up to them and put them in their place is a test of political canniness and stamina. But the key here is McCain himself. The truth is that the guy doesn't actually have any real convictions -- or to put it more precisely, no real consistent convictions. That's evidenced in part by the kind of campaign the guy's running now. And at least a few of his press admirers are starting to sense that."

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing McCain for failing to compel the NC GOP to take down its controversial anti-Obama ad:

• Firedoglake's TeddySanFran: "Can [McCain] really not get the ad pulled? Or does he relish the controversy, sailing above the argument on the media-defined high-road? [Is he] impotent? Or a sleazebag? Or both?"
• Sudbay: "If McCain says he'll do everything in his power to stop it, and it isn't stopped, clearly, McCain has no power. That's very telling. [...] While this episode demonstrates the GOP gutter politics, it also really says something about McCain's leadership abilities -- or lack thereof. He is the head of the Republican party and can't get some two-bit political hack in the Republican party to heed his words. How is McCain ever going to handle Congress? Even worse, how is McCain ever going to handle our enemies? If people in McCain's own party don't listen to him, why would anyone else?"

MCCAIN III: Wright Is Off The Table, Conservatives

Many conservative bloggers were initially confused by McCain's standards regarding which of Obama's associates (Wright = yes; Ayers = no) are subject to scrutiny and which aren't:

• Malkin: "[McCain] didn't bother to watch the 41-second video before his campaign leaned on the NC GOP to withdraw it. He doesn't want to see it, lest he sully his delicate eyes. Yet, he's so indignantly sure 'that there's no place for that kind of campaigning.' And then he has the gall to turn around and knock Obama's elitism. Congratulations, Sen. McCain: You've out-snobbed Snobama. [...] Meanwhile, McCain continues to give himself special dispensation to challenge Obama's relationship with Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers. Because, you see, raising questions about a Radical of Color is 'not appropriate and unhelpful', but raising questions about a Radical of Pallor is McCain-tested and RNC-approved."
• Hinderaker: "I'm fine with calling Obama Hamas's man in Washington (and Danny Ortega's too), but I am at a loss to understand why it is OK to pin Hamas's endorsement on Obama, but, in McCain's world, 'unacceptable' to tie Obama to another supporter, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to whom he is obviously far closer."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy agrees with Hinderaker: "The Hamas endorsement of Obama, while understandable, was unsolicited; Wright, on the other hand, is someone with whom Obama was tight for two decades and who Obama chose to incorporate in his campaign as an advisor. Why does McCain figure the former is fit for criticism but focus on the latter is an occasion for smug condemnation of conservatives?"

MCCAIN IV: Scratch That, Wright Is On The Table!

Conservative bloggers were pleased when McCain publicly criticized Wright after Obama called his pastor "a legitimate political issue" during his FOX News Sunday interview:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Perhaps looking for an excuse to get out of his political predicament (i.e. he can't talk about a critical issue his likely opponent admits is a problem), McCain now seems to have walked through Obama's open door. [...] Apparently all now agree: this is not an illegitimate issue."
• Morrissey: "This turned into a thing of beauty, politically speaking. McCain had made high-profile arguments against using Wright as a campaign issue, which had annoyed people on the Right but played well with the centrists and independents McCain hopes to woo away from Democrats in the fall. After Obama made the mistake of calling the issue legitimate, McCain had the opening he needed, provided by a neophyte politician who failed to grasp the advantage he had until that moment."
• NRO's Byron York: "I think the bottom line here is that McCain, who personally doesn't want to push the Wright issue, thinks he has found a way to get himself out of the position of fighting every other Republican and third-party group that wants to bring it up. If Obama is the nominee, we'll see if that policy can withstand the pressures of a general-election campaign."
• see-dubya: "McCain could have saved the party a lot of frustration had he just said this a couple days ago, and he wouldn't have looked indecisive. He may hurt Obama with this, but he hasn't done himself any favors."

On the left side of the blogosphere, The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen isn't surprised by McCain's shift: "Considering McCain’s career and temperament, none of this should surprise anyone. He is, after all, the Republican presidential candidate and he really wants to be president. So, he’s willing to break promises, get ugly, and take cheap shots? More than six months before the election? Of course he is. Campaign reporters and talking heads refuse to believe it, but McCain is not a man of high-minded principal. He’s an opportunistic conservative pol with an effective p.r. operation."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Foreign Policy As Spite

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias criticizes McCain's boast that he will be "Hamas's worst nightmare":

"As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer."

LEST WE FORGET: Another Gem From Chris Matthews

Hardball host Chris Matthews offers Obama some "advice" on how to get white Americans to vote for him:

"You got to talk like a firebrand because if you're carrying their fight for them, they're going to like you. You know, a lot of white people root for black athletes because they're winning for the home team. People are quite willing to pick up black heroes, if they'll win for their side."

Radar's Alex Balk:

"It's good advice for the Obama team: Remember how all the Caucasians in Chicago hated black person Michael Jordan until the Bulls started winning championships? Once that happened, it was almost as if he was as good as white people! Barack just needs to work on his perimeter shooting a bit and the race is over. Also, he should consider putting Scottie Pippen on the ticket."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

April 25, 2008

4/25: Who You Callin' Unelectable?

As The Huffington Post's David Edsall notes, the media is increasingly pressing Hillary Clinton's message that Barack Obama has "potentially fatal flaws" that could doom him in the general election. The netroots are aware of this trend and are fighting back fiercely. Liberal bloggers are blasting the Clinton camp's arguments as intellectually dishonest while arguing that, on the contrary, Obama is more electable than Clinton. In addition, Markos Moulitsas is claiming that Dem Senate candidates will benefit from having Obama at the top of the ticket, noting that the IL senator currently polls better than Clinton in many of the states with competitive Senate races (such as VA, CO, and MN).

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are criticizing John McCain for calling NC GOP officials "out of touch" after they refused to pull their controversial anti-Obama ad. McCain's willingness to chastise other Republicans reminds many bloggers why they don't trust the AZ senator. Michelle Malkin complains: "Has [McCain] ever attacked Jeremiah Wright this way? No. Never. That is the McCain way."

DEM FIELD: The Netroots Defend Their Guy

The Huffington Post's Edsall examines how the media has embraced the Clinton camp's argument about Obama's electability problems: "In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks. The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times. For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown. Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws. For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal."

Undoubtedly aware of this shift in media coverage, liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against the Clinton camp's electability arguments:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can't Hillary beat him? Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don't insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday? [...] If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?"
• Moulitsas links to Cole's post and responds: "Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee."
• In a later post, Moulitsas writes: "The Clintons [once] insisted that this election would be decided by the delegate count. [...] [In Feb., Clinton strategist Howard] Wolfson said it was 'obvious' that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the 'popular vote', and about 'electability', and about IF, IF, and IF. [...] Note how the Obama campaign never disparaged the system or the role of the delegates while they trailed in those metrics. They knew the rules of the game, and decided to operate within their confines. They have never attempted to rewrite them for their own benefit. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, appears to have as much respect for the rules (and reality, for that matter) as the [George W.] Bush administration they are seeking to replace."
• AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner: "I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DHinMI ridicules the "Clinton campaign logic": "Barack Obama can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Hillary Clinton didn't really prefer Clinton, they opposed Barack Obama. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Obama, like single women and members of AFSCME, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November. [...] Hillary Clinton can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Barack Obama didn't simply prefer Obama, they opposed Clinton. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Clinton, like people for whom the Iraq war is the most important issue or members of SEIU, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November. And while we're at it, we should point out that John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mike Huckabee among conservative evangelical Christian voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win conservative evangelical Christian voters. [...] Gee, if you follow through on the logic of the Clinton campaign, nobody will win in November."

DEM FIELD II: Markos Vs. Jerome

Prominent liberal bloggers (and longtime friends) Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong are continuing their ongoing electability debate (which we discussed yesterday). First, Moulitsas makes the electability case for Obama: "[Obama] runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton. If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the [John] Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many 'Red' states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters. Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters."

Jerome Armstrong responds: "[Obama is] an un-tested gamble. There is no doubt that Clinton's electability has issues, but to highlight those, while claiming Obama is unassailable in his electability, can only happen if one ignores reality. The problem with this type of Obama supporter, is that they still live in a pre-Wright bubble, in their estimation of an Obama GE candidacy. They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That's not the Obama of late April. Neither is Clinton going to move us beyond a battleground strategy. They both have very different states where they are strong, and likewise where they are weaker than the other."

Armstrong continues: "Overall, Florida's 27 delegates, added with Ohio's 20 and Arkansas 6 equals 53 EV's is states that Clinton could win today, but Obama will start off behind. Clinton puts in play an additional 24 EV's that are currently out of reach by Obama. And McCain has 27 EV's in play against Obama that he doesn't against Clinton. Those are pretty significant numbers in Clinton's column, and they add up to a EV lead today of 284 - 244 over McCain. You could