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 quibble about the categories, neverminding that alot of those state polls in non-battleground states are reflective of February, or earlier, results. Or, you could take a dose of reality and realize that either Clinton or Obama would have a tough map against McCain, doable but battling -- and foolish to claim otherwise."

Moulitsas is unpersuaded: "Obama has a higher ceiling, he wins states like Minnesota (and Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, and so on) more easily than Clinton. If 'electability' is the measure by which the supers should decide, the numbers are fairly clear. Having better numbers in Florida does Clinton little good if McCain threatens to take away Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Those three states have 37 EVs, to Florida's 27."

CLINTON: It's A Love/Hate Thing

Conservative bloggers have had a unique relationship with Clinton in this Dem primary. Many of them are actively rooting for the NY senator while simultaneously criticizing her motives and character:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Although I'm supporting John McCain for President in 2008, I have to admit that I'd rather see Hillary Clinton as his opponent. That's not because I think she'd be a weaker candidate; it's because I'd love to see that smug tin god, Barack Obama, humbled and forced to taste bitter defeat at Hillary's hands. Ironically, just a few months ago, I would loved to have seen Hillary beaten by Barack because she seemed to have such a sense of entitlement about the Democratic nomination. So now, the shoe is completely on the other foot. Come to think of it, that may be Barack Obama's only significant accomplishment: he has been the first Democrat who has ever made conservatives see any good at all in Hillary Clinton."
• RedState's Moe Lane explains why GOPers trust Clinton more than Obama: "Why it is that we go after Obama hammer and tongs on [national security] issues but largely give Clinton a pass[?] It's actually very simple: we don't believe a word she says on the issue, which makes her more reliable. [...] Senator Clinton is trying to get elected, and she's been trimming on this issue from Day One. She's stuck in a Party that dislikes national security policy questions...so she's been stuck with pandering to them. [...] We don't believe that she actually has a principled stance on the subject, which means (paradoxically) that she's not going to either ignore objective reality if she gets in the Oval Office, or let her past utterances adversely affect her in any way, shape, or form. And Clinton certainly won't take any risks on this. At all. We can work with that. As for Senator Obama...well, the only thing that he has been clear and unambiguous about is his opposition to the war -- which, by the way, is going fairly well at the moment -- and we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. When he says he'd have us bug out of Iraq, the only thing that any reasonably objective observer can conclude is that he means it."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The LA Times notes that Hillary Clinton's promise to 'obliterate' Iran if it attacked Israel is ruffling feathers around the world. What was striking to me about Clinton's comments were how she has abandoned the cautious tone that she employed last year when she was considered inevitable. In the AFL-CIO debate held in Chicago last August, then-frontrunner Clinton was asked to respond to Barack Obama's comments about acting on actionable itellegence of Al Qaeda operatives being in Pakistan. 'Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals,' she remarked. [...] There's been a lot of Clinton love among conservatives over the past several weeks, because she has been weakening Obama and attacking him from the right. But we should never lose sight of how adaptable Clinton is, and how she will literally say whatever suits her purposes at a given moment."
• The Weekly Standard's Richelieu: "If the GOP has a large Bronze medal of distinction, we should cast one at once and gleefully award it to Mrs. Clinton for her meritorious service to our cause. [...] A long and damaging Democratic primary [is] pitting one vital part of its base in deadly combat against another and continuing that fight long beyond a sensible conclusion. Mrs. Clinton's hand alone is on this throttle of Democratic fratricide and she appears to be accelerating the engine of Democrat destruction rather than easing it back. [...] Anyone who once had doubts about Mrs. Clinton's loyalty to the interests of the Democratic party instead of to her own ambition now has their answer."

MCCAIN: We Have An Elitist In Our Midst!

For the first time in months, McCain is taking sustained criticism from conservative bloggers for his response to the NC GOP's controversial anti-Obama ad. Bloggers are particularly critical of McCain for making the following remarks about NC GOP officials after they refused to pull the ad:

"'They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable,' McCain told NBC's 'Today' Show."

• Michelle Malkin: "McCain attacks the NC GOP as 'out of touch with reality'. Has he ever attacked Jeremiah Wright this way? No. Never. That is the McCain way. Who is out of touch with reality? Pot meet kettle. As I pointed out last week, Obama isn't the only snob in the race."
• Philip Klein: "[McCain is] reminding a lot of conservatives why they can't stand him. [...] I've watched the ad five times now, and I still can't see what's so unacceptable about it. McCain has now declared it beyond the pale for Republicans to criticize Barack Obama for his close spiritual and personal relationship with a vile, American hating, pastor."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I gave John McCain political points for asking the NC GOP to take down that ad. But now, he seems to have ratcheted up his rhetoric. [...] This, of course, raises some questions. For one, is referring to the North Carolina Republican Party as 'out of touch' an elitist statement? Is this his version of 'small town voters'?...No doubt, it's easier to criticize a Republican Party than it is to criticize voters, but is there a thought that these are yokels down there who 'didn't get the memo?' [...] Lastly, by attacking the ad so vehemently, is McCain saying that Rev. Wright is 'off the table' as a political issue in the fall?"
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[This is] just McCain being McCain and he's gotta hope Republicans want to stop the Dem enough to get out and vote for him. (I think they will.) But I don't this will be the only time he criticizes Republicans just out of habit."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain in a blogger call today repeatedly said he thought the ad was 'not appropriate' and did not reflect the 'tenor of the campaign we want to run.' But by indicating that he thought Americans were entitled to consider any issue they wished, he left the issue muddled: what's wrong with him talking about Wright? And why condemn those who do?"

NRO's Jim Geraghty, on the other hand, thinks there is a "method to McCain's no-negative messages madness": "McCain is already competing for the voters in the center, while Obama and Clinton are still competing for the votes of the party's liberal wing. An element of this strategy, by the way, includes McCain sometimes taking shots at his own party, often in ways that will make conservatives grumble. See today's criticism of Bush's handling of Katrina, or his criticism of the North Carolina GOP commercial featuring Jeremiah Wright, or his criticism of Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham for calling Obama by his full name. [...Obama] says he's going to unite the country, and is running on hope, but when his surrogates try to kneecap an opponent, we get these milquetoast disapproving statements from press aides. But when somebody on McCain's team does something that's even remotely controversial, the senator denounces it in front of the cameras. One guy walks the walk, the other guy just talks the talk. And the frustrated independents, exhausted from nasty politics, will notice this."

MCCAIN II: Memo To Broder: McCain's A Politician

Liberal bloggers are criticizing The Washington Post's David Broder for writing, "In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Broder didn't say who makes this assumption about McCain's integrity, which is odd, because I can think of all kinds of examples of McCain 'sacrificing personal credibility to prevail' politically. Perhaps Broder could take a look at that flip-flop list I put together (and continue to update thanks to McCain's penchant for changing directions). In nearly every instance, McCain abandoned a more moderate position for a far more conservative one, and in each case, it was a transparent effort to curry favor with the Republican Party's far-right base in order to help him with the GOP presidential nomination."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Just look at Steve Benen's list of the issues on which McCain has changed his positions, and note how many of those changes occurred when he was preparing to run for President, or during his run when his original position turned out to be unpopular. And it's not as though the list is composed of minor details. It includes things McCain has previously taken to be among his signature issues: things like balancing the budget and being a Republican. My personal favorite, though, is still the loan McCain took out to bail out his campaign -- the one in which he gave up his legal right to decide for himself whether or not to stay in the Presidential race, and pledged to pretend to be a candidate for long enough to get taxpayer matching funds to pay off his loan. Deciding whether or not that's a violation of campaign finance laws is above my pay grade, but it certainly violates their spirit."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I'll give Broder credit for one thing: he's right about McCain's straight-talkiness being generally 'assumed.' And look -- it's not as if the only way to fight this legend is by pretending that the polar opposite is true instead. McCain is hardly the most devious politician ever to take the national stage. But there's plenty of evidence that his MO is to get outsized credit for a very small number of mavericky stands while spending about 98% of his political life doing all the usual things that career politicians do. He hangs with lobbyists, he does favors for big contributors, he waffles on positions that might hurt him, he panders to constituencies whose votes he needs, and he very rarely takes a politically risky stand on anything. In other words, he's just a normal pol with a really good PR shop."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Raised Stakes

NRO's Mark Steyn explains why "the stakes are greater on the Democrat side" in '08:

What's the worst that could happen to the Republicans this fall?
McCain loses, there's some further attrition in the House and Senate. In other words, just more of the genteel decline of a listless GOP that seems all out of ideological gas.

What's the best that could happen?

McCain wins, the attrition in the House and Senate is modestly reversed. A maverick president gets to enact big bipartisan "reforms" with a Democrat Congress. GOP continues to decline.

What's the best that could happen to the Democrats?

Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms.

What's the worst?

Hillary manages to deny him the nomination, or he gets it but loses on a McGovernite scale. Traumatic meltdown, bitterness, civil war in the party, etc, leading perhaps to the sundering of key elements of the Dem coalition.

LEST WE FORGET: What My Dad Is Talking About When He Yells "That's What I'm Talking 'Bout"

By McSweeney's' Julia McCloy:

• a seamless reverse layup
• a quick turnaround jumpshot
• three points from downtown
• the effeminate way my brother sticks his pinkie out when downing a Schlitz

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:37 PM

April 24, 2008

4/24: Point/Counterpoint

Liberal bloggers are fiercely debating Hillary Clinton's claim that superdelegates should support her because (a.) she leads in the popular vote, and (b.) she's more electable than Barack Obama. Most bloggers dispute Clinton's contention that she leads Obama in the popular vote, pointing to the fact that she's only ahead if one includes the results from MI (where Obama wasn't on the ballot) and FL. Other bloggers don't think the popular vote is a valid metric to begin with, since states that hold caucuses (which have fewer participants than primaries) are under-represented. Meanwhile, there's a fierce debate between pro-Clinton bloggers and pro-Obama bloggers about which candidate is a better general election bet.

Liberal bloggers aren't the only ones arguing among themselves, however. Conservative bloggers are having a dispute of their own (albeit a much smaller one). Some righty bloggers think John McCain is smart to disavow the controversial anti-Obama ad created by the NC GOP, since McCain gets to look noble while the cable news networks obsess over the ad anyway. However, other bloggers are angry that McCain is being such a "weenie." Michelle Malkin calls McCain's response "an idiotic strategy to convince more rank-and-file Republicans to stop giving money to the Beltway GOP elite" and encourages her readers to support the ad by donating money to the NC GOP.

DEM FIELD: Debating The Popular Vote

The co-authors of 2006 netroots manifesto Crashing The Gate -- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong (a Clinton supporter) and Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas (an Obama supporter) -- are arguing over which Dem candidate leads in the popular vote. The debate started when Armstrong passed along the the Clinton camp's claim that she now leads Obama by 120,000 votes in the popular vote (if the primaries in MI and FL are included and the caucuses in IA, NV, ME, and WA are excluded):

"After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas disputed the Clinton camp's (and Armstrong's) logic: "That's simply ridiculous. Go to Real Clear Politics and look at their popular vote estimates (pre-Pennsylvania). [...] See what they have done -- the Clinton campaign and Jerome have taken the roughly 215,000 net votes Clinton gained in Pennsylvania, and added them to the popular vote count that includes the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida, and excludes caucuses in four states. How's that for inclusiveness? It gets worse. That Michigan vote estimate? Obama wasn't on the ballot. If you count the 'uncommitted' votes for Obama -- all of them anti-Hillary votes, remember -- that would add 237,762 votes to Obama's total. Which means that in Clinton and Jerome's world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you 'disenfranchise' every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton. That takes a new and particularly audacious level of chutzpah."

Armstrong responded: "The real popular vote is very close. Clinton leads by just 12,506 votes, a lead of .04 percent. The numbers I passed on in a post yesterday about Clinton's lead in the popular vote excluded estimates from 4 caucus states, which I didn't realize until being able to check in later (and updated the post). I see that Markos flipped out with a tirade about it. But, rather than be content with calling out a math error, Markos has to up the ante audacious to demand we 'count the count the Michigan "uncommitted" votes for Obama'. Ah, well, John Edwards was still in the race at the time and was surely in the same boat, having also pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan. [...] No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA [...] It didn't work, Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan."

DEM FIELD II: Still Debating The Popular Vote

Most liberal bloggers agree with Moulitsas that Obama has the popular vote lead:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Kos is right that it is ridiculous to claim Clinton is winning the popular vote right now. Excluding the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes for Michigan is absurd. We can get an exact count if Iowa, Nevada and Maine release the numbers they have in their possession."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hillary's campaign is today alleging that they overtook Obama in the popular vote last night! Of course, it isn't true, but hey, I guess it depends on what the definition of truth is. Even though Hillary is still half a million votes behind Obama, including primaries and caucuses, her campaign is of course now adding in the votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were disqualified by the DNC. So, yes, if you add imaginary votes to the count then Hillary does take the lead in imaginary-land."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Right now, there is no solid ground for arguing that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, since she only leads by 10,000 when Florida, estimated caucus turnout, and Michigan are included. However, since Obama supporters obviously made up more than 10,000 of the 237,000 Michigan uncommitted, clearly right now more people who have participated in a nomination event have supported Obama than Clinton."

Bowers continues: "When measuring the popular vote, it is best to throw the widest possible net. This means to include Florida. It also means to include the estimates from caucus states that did not release popular totals, which stand at Obama 334,084--223,862 Clinton. Finally, it means to include Michigan, but also to allocate Obama 72.91%, or 173,368 of the uncommitted vote. This number is derived by dividing Obama's exit poll support in Michigan by the combined exit poll support of Obama, Edwards and [Bill] Richardson, and then multiplying that number with the total uncommitted vote. Adding in the totals from everywhere else, this results in a grand total of Obama 15,481,172--15,319,525 Clinton, or an Obama margin of 161,647 votes. Problematically, these totals also results in a popular vote total with a margin of error, given the caucus and Michigan uncommitted allocation. [...] Overall, with the complications arising from competing popular vote totals, vote estimation, and that we are facing a plurality winner instead of a majority one, I have to conclude that the popular vote is actually meaning less and less as we go on. The actual nature of the process, as a series of several thousand small elections for delegate slots, is asserting itself."

AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner doesn't think the popular vote is a legitimate metric to begin with: "The popular vote is not a fair metric in a mixed primary system. [...] Just because the concept is a little tough to understand does not mean it's wrong. Terry McAuliffe et al can scream 'popular vote' all they want, but it doesn't make them right. They would have an argument if all states used a primary. But they don't. Caucuses are harder to participate in (they demand more time and commitment) and, therefore, draw fewer voters. Caucus states are then represented considerably less in the popular vote than primary states. It's why the delegate allocation exists. You can't toss out the contest because you don't like the outcome. I don't know how we've gotten to the point that the press isn't willing to cry foul at the very first suggestion of it."

DEM FIELD III: Debating Electability

Pro-Clinton bloggers are arguing that Clinton is more electable than Obama:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate in November because she is more likely to bring a win in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, she wins in the big states, and she wins with rural, blue collar and women voters. Her win in PA [Tuesday] was a mirror of her win in Ohio. Barack Obama simply is not connecting with these critical groups of voters."
• Armstrong: "Going by the national polls of registered voters, it is true that Obama does better than Clinton by .9 percent (can I call that 1%?) over McCain. So what, ask Al Gore. A look at the state polls reveals the trouble. The Obama map shows big problems in Florida and Ohio, and most of the midwest region. In fact, if Obama doesn't have the states of Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico to contend for (see Obama's previous positions on gun control for potential trouble), it becomes a very difficult map. Clinton's map is stronger, taking Florida and Ohio over McCain."

Moulitsas pushes back against these arguments: "The Mountain West has huge growth potential for the Democratic Party, which is why the DNCC is in Denver this year. Colorado is leading the way and is definitely a winnable state...with the right candidate at the top of the ticket. Obama makes Colorado competitive, Clinton kills it for us. And that's not just relevant at the top of the ticket. We have a top-tier Senate race in the state, and you better believe Mark Udall is better off with Obama at the top of the ticket than having to make up a 14-point Clinton deficit. [...] Same goes for another Red state we can flip with the right candidate (that 'right' candidate being Obama): North Carolina. Clinton might make this one competitive, but it'd be tough. Obama immediately makes this a top-tier pickup opportunity in a state that McCain can ill-afford to defend. [...] What about the purple states, like Minnesota? Minnesota won't be a state we can take for granted this fall. It will be a tough one for either Obama or Clinton, but it's clear that Obama fares better. [...] Same goes with Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington."

Moulitsas concludes: "Really, I can go through polls all day (and likely will over the coming two weeks), showing how in most states Obama runs stronger and has greater coattail potential than Clinton. I'm even ignoring pre-'Bitter' polls to ensure the numbers aren't just fresh, but include all of Obama's baggage. Yet as we'll see in the vast majority of cases (the biggest exception being Florida, though there are several others), Obama does far better. [...] So remind me again how is Clinton 'more electable' against McCain than Obama? She's lost more contests to Obama than she's won. She's raised less money than he has. She fares poorer in the polling against McCain than he does. She trails in the popular vote. And somehow, despite the fact she runs behind Obama in the general, the supers are supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate and spur intra-party civil war on her behalf? Is she really that narcissistic? Apparently so."

DEM FIELD IV: Still Debating Electability

Several liberal bloggers are pushing back against John Judis' New Republic article, "The Next McGovern?," which argues that "Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary":

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "If it's true that Obama has trouble winning over Hillary Clinton's core supporters because of their deep-seated aversion to Obama, then how is he leading in the national polls against McCain? I think Clinton's voters are loyally backing her because they like Hillary Clinton a lot and given her status as a quasi-incumbent, party leader, and her husband's wife it's very hard to knock her off that pedestal. To make a long story short, John's way of looking at the race seems to simply exclude the possibility that both Democrats are running strong campaigns. But I don't see any reason to view either candidate's trouble as reflecting 'weakness' as opposed to his or her opponent's strength."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "John's assumption that a candidate's primary base will be the same as his general election base strikes me as seriously flawed. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will her electoral base consist of blue-collar whites? No, it will be highly similar to Obama's, with a major reliance on minorities and white liberals. [...] Right now Obama is having a hard time winning blue collar whites on the economy in large part because he has an opponent with a virtually identical economic platform. When he has an opponent who's tethered himself to President [George W.] Bush's highly unpopular economic policies, winning over blue collar whites on the economy will get a lot easier. Extrapolating from primary dynamics to general election dynamics is very dicey business."

Several prominent liberal bloggers agree with Chait's assertion that "extrapolating from primary dynamics to general election dynamics is very dicey business":

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I think I've said this a hundred times, as have many others. But this article in Thursday's Times is a good moment to revisit the point. As Patrick Healy explains, it is simply a fallacy to claim that winning a state's Democratic primary means you're more likely to win that state in the general election or that your opponent can't win it."
• Bowers: "Any general election electability argument based on results of Democratic nomination events is nonsensical. [...] The voters in primaries are in no way representative of the voters in general elections. For example, winning Iowa or New Hampshire in a caucus or primary does not mean someone can win Iowa or New Hampshire in a general election, because you are dealing with entirely different electorates in general elections than in primaries and caucuses. The same holds true for demographic groups. Winning white Catholics, or Independents, or Latinos, or high-income voters in a primary or caucus is not reflective of an ability to win those groups in a general election, because you will be dealing with entirely different sets of those voters in a general than in a primary or caucus."

DEM FIELD V: Righty Bloggers Chime In

Conservative bloggers generally side with the pro-Clinton bloggers in arguing that Obama will have trouble winning working-class whites in the general election:

• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "So, Barack Obama has this little problem: he can't seem to win working-class white voters. With rare exception (Iowa, Missouri), he basically only wins states -- and in particular only wins primaries -- where all the working-class white voters are already Republicans, leaving the Democrats a stripped-down shell of African-Americans and college towns. [...] Time was, working-class whites were the backbone, the very reason for the existence of the Democratic Party, FDR's 'forgotten man.' What Obama is running on instead is, essentially, the McGovern coalition."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Obama has a real problem. He cannot win votes among a core constituency of the Democratic Party's coalition. [...] Does the Democratic Party not need or want the votes Catholics? What about Hispanics, another group that is increasingly receptive to conservative values and messages -- Bush got 44% and McCain could get even more --, and they also don't like Obama. Does the Obama campaign want them?"
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "If I were a timeserving party hack -- which is to say a 'superdelegate' -- wondering about my support for Hillary, Pennsylvania ought to confirm the shrewdness of my judgment: Obama's a hopelessly weak candidate with minimal appeal beyond blacks and upscale white liberals who enjoy the kinky frisson of racial guilt."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[Obama's] campaign head David Axelrod commented that Barack Obama can, in essence write, off white working-class voters because '[t]he white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.' It's rather stunning that Obama seems disinclined to worry about his poor showing with these voters. [...] The reality is that [Obama's] base, built largely on African Americans and college kids, may well fall apart over the course of his national campaign. And telling dependable Democratic voters you don't care about them isn't going to help matters."

DEM FIELD VI: Show Us Your Cards, Superdelegates

Liberal bloggers continue to urge the undeclared superdelegates to make their choices known:

• Yglesias: "Undeclared superdelegates [should] state their preferences. If there's a large pro-Clinton group out there, fine. So be it. Stand up and let yourselves be counted. If not, if you're for Obama, then even better -- raise your hand. [...] At this point, we know what we need to know. We know the policy differences between the candidates, we know the 'freak show' issues surrounding the candidates, we know the basic shape of each candidate's core electoral coalition, and we know that in the end Obama will have a modest but real lead in elected delegates. Everyone should declare."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Dear Superdelegates...Will you please listen to our party chairman, Howard Dean, and tell us who the hell you're voting for? We just went through another grueling primary in which tens of millions of dollars are spent, both sides beat the crap out of each other over trivial personality shit and behaved in increasingly demeaning ways (Crown Royal?! Bowling!?!?!) and the net result is -- yet again -- a virtually unchanged delegate count. [...] Democratic superdelegates, unless you are the biggest attention whores/megalomaniacs on the planet, there's no good reason why you can't tell us who you're with now. We've been looking at these candidates for 13 months, we've seen them from every angle imaginable, we know more about them then we knew about John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And there's nothing Guam or Puerto Rico or South Dakota is going to tell us that we didn't already know. Show us your cards."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I'm sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands -- just as it has been for weeks. Whether they decide in August, June, or April, these insiders are going to deliver the nomination to one candidate or the other. What are they waiting for? They know they'll have to make a decision, but they're still undecided? Still? One candidate is going to enter the convention with more delegates, more states, and almost certainly more popular votes. If superdelegates find that compelling, fine, back Obama. One candidate will enter the convention with more 'big-state' victories and stronger support among the elderly and blue-collar workers. If they find that more compelling, fine, back Clinton. Just do something."

OBAMA: Still In The Driver's Seat

Liberal bloggers are defending Obama's performance in the PA primary:

• Ezra Klein: "A 9 point loss for Obama wasn't some cosmic drubbing. It was actually a substantial closing of the margin in a state where Obama was hit by the Jeremiah Wright videos and 'Bittergate', and where Clinton started with a 20-point lead and the endorsement of the popular and hard-campaigning governor. [...] One could just as easily spin these results into a decisive problem for Clinton: In a state where Obama faced brutally inhospitable demographics and weathered two major scandals in the course of six weeks, she saw her lead cut by more than half, rather than expanded by a third. If she couldn't knock him out here, where, and in what circumstances, can she knock him out?"
• Moulitsas: "What was a 10.5% win in demographically friendly Ohio has become a 9.4% win in similar Pennsylvania, except the state was even less black and with a much smaller youth voter population (Pennsylvania's seniors accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, compared to 23 percent in Ohio). And, those gains were made despite the Wright controversy as well as manufactured bullshit about 'bitter' and flag pins and whatnot. On top of that, Obama has had to run against Hillary Clinton, against former President of the United States Bill Clinton, and against John McCain and the entire GOP apparatus, which has trained its guns on Obama hoping to give Clinton a boost. Yet he continues to gain among most of Clinton's best demographics, is still raising more money, leads comfortably in delegates, leads comfortably in the popular vote, leads in states won, leads in the national polls, and does better in the head-to-head matchups against McCain. So why should the supers spark an intra-party civil war by overturning the will of the electorate again?"
• In a separate post, Moulitsas gives another reason why Obama lost: "Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she pisses a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan! Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay agrees with Moulitsas' latter point: "Hillary and her crew have really exploited this situation. She loves to invoke Rev. Wright and had a field day with the 'bitter' comment. It's not like there isn't plenty of ripe material in her past that could be political fodder. But, Obama doesn't go there. The Republicans will. So, she is using the GOP attacks on Obama (the kind of attacks that the GOP will use on Hillary), but Obama, for the reasons Markos stated, doesn't respond in kind."

Several bloggers think Clinton's PA victory didn't help her all that much:

• Atrios: "In the world of media narratives, how the press will talk about the primary campaign, it's true we're at the status quo. But in terms of who is actually going to win this thing, [Tuesday] night was actually a bad night for Clinton. Somehow she has to win a lot of delegates, and opportunities to do so lessen with each contest."
• The Huffington Post's Robert Creamer: "Pennsylvania provided [Clinton] with her final real opportunity to knock the wheels off the Obama campaign. She needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural -- Hillary's voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin -- which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2% -- fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination."

OBAMA II: Stay Classy, NC GOP

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the NC GOP's decision to run a sensational anti-Obama ad featuring Wright in spite of McCain's stated opposition to the ad:

• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "The ad is pretty much what you'd expect: OMG! Barack Obama like totally 'SAT IN HIS PEW!!!' while some black dude said some bad things about America. He clearly is a terrorist!!! Except that he wasn't actually in the church when the clip the ad uses was recorded. As Kevin Drum pointed out, John McCain and the national RNC chairman Mike Duncan are so outraged that they...sent an email and left a polite voice mail message respectively. Feel the fury! I'm sure with this kind of strong response we won't see these sorts of tactics in the general election."
• Atrios: "The Next Six Months: Some Republican or conservative group runs a dumb ad. John McCain nobly distances himself from it. Cable news spends all day talking about it and showing it for free. Rinse. Repeat."

Daily Kos' DHinMI thinks the ad proves that the GOP would rather face Clinton than Obama: "McCain can complain, but it's naïve to think that this ad is being run against the wishes of McCain's strategists. If they thought Obama was the weaker candidate, they would stand aside and let him more quickly end the primary contest. Yes, regardless of who ends up the nominee, the GOP benefits from us still fighting out state-by-state primaries and caucuses (even though caucuses don't count and are in states that don't matter). But what's more important to the GOP, if they have any control over it, is getting the weaker opponent for McCain. Hence, the ads attacking Obama."

Meanwhile, Obama discussed the ad in an interview with Beverly Davis from Huffington Post's OffTheBus:

"Well, my understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said the ad is inappropriate. I take them at their word. And I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad that he can get them to pull it down since he's their nominee and standard-bearer."

OBAMA III: Bravo, NC GOP!

Conservative bloggers love the NC GOP ad, which they believe is intended to prolong the Dem primary by helping Clinton:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The two Democrats mentioned in the clip, [NC LG Beverly] Perdue and [NC Treas. Richard] Moore, are running against each other in the gubernatorial primary. There's no reason for the state GOP to attack both of them now, before either's been nominated -- unless they're looking for an excuse to get this up on the air to help Hillary on May 6. Which is fair: Like the Journal says, '[T]he real winner from the six week Pennsylvania primary campaign was the Republican Party.' It's only proper that we return the favor."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "How could the NC GOP think to intervene in the Democratic primary in this way? They even have a contribution button up, the cheeky so-and-sos -- as if we'd give them money for the express purpose of making our opponents' lives miserable. No, no, the McCain campaign is quite right to decry this, and it's such a crying shame that he cannot of course in good conscience interfere with what is strictly an internal decision by the NC GOP. We're just going to have to live it, alas."

Several conservative bloggers think McCain is smart to disavow the ad:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I'm hearing a great deal of complaints about John McCain's disavowal and disapproval of a North Carolina GOP ad that shows Jeremiah Wright's 'God d*** America' sermon and hits two local Democrats for endorsing Barack Obama. Does no one else see what's going on here? How many other North Carolina Republican Party ads have you heard about this year? Last year? The year before that? By criticizing the ad, McCain turned it into a national story, which means the ad is likely to be replayed on the cable networks and linked on YouTube and discussed on the talk shows and talk radio and written about in newspapers and magazines. This ad has 76,000 views on YouTube already, and it was posted online Tuesday. And McCain gets to take the high road, saying he doesn't want to see negative campaigning done on his behalf."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "While some conservatives will, no doubt, think this is a sign of wimpiness, I see it as sagaciousness: McCain stays on the high road in the eyes of the hoi polloi, while the negative stuff still gets out to the media. I am not suggesting that this is done pro forma with a wink and a nod -- I truly believe McCain considers this to be infra dig and wants them to stop running this. And in the case of a GOP organization, McCain may in fact be able to force them to stop running it. But when it comes to outside groups -- who are sure to run these types of ads -- McCain won't have much of a say in the matter..."

Other conservative bloggers are angry that McCain and RNC criticized the ad:

• Michelle Malkin: "Some McCain supporters are spinning the disavowal of the ad as a masterful strategy to stay above the fray. Nonsense. It's an idiotic strategy to convince more rank-and-file Republicans to stop giving money to the Beltway GOP elite. Here's the NC GOP website. They're asking for support. Help 'em out if you can."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[The ad] uses Wright's own words and calls Obama 'extreme' for buddying up to him. What's even supposed to be wrong with it? If Republicans can't even quote Obama or his 'spiritual mentor' without it being declared out-of-bounds, we might as well just go ahead and concede the election now. Moreover, since the McCain campaign and the RNC are being such weenies about this, here's a suggestion: take any money that you were going to give to the RNC and/or McCain campaign this week and give it to the North Carolina Republican Party instead so we can at least have somebody out there that's not too intimidated to fight against the Democrats."

OBAMA IV: Orange Alert!

Conservative bloggers continue to discuss Obama's connections with ex-Weathermen Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Ayers and Dohrn were domestic terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s, and they are as radical now as they ever were, as evidenced by their own words. Obama emerged from the far-left fringe of Chicago politics, and his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn, like his relationship with spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, raises important questions about Obama's own political beliefs. Obama has defended his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn by saying that Ayers did 'reprehensible' things forty years ago, when Obama was eight years old. He says that Ayers and Dohrn are now respectable, mainstream figures in Chicago. But the reality is quite different; they, like Wright, are anything but 'mainstream' in their views of America. [...] Barack Obama owes the American people an explanation of his choice of friends and political associates."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Last year, twelve years after Obama sought out their blessing for his first political race and five years after Obama's association with them at the Woods Foundation ended, both Ayers and Dohrn still preach that America-hating gospel."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[McCain] may not have been my first choice, but after what we're seeing and continuing to learn about both Democrat candidates, I'd crawl uphill over broken glass to cast a ballot for him -- and I suspect I'm not alone. Information like this -- in a Chicago Tribune column by John Kass -- is the reason why: One of the Dem candidates associates with terrorists...the other's husband pardons them."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt wants the media to devote more coverage to Ayers and Dohrn: "MSM may not have wanted to look very hard for any background on the friends of Obama, but now that it has been dug up, broadcast, and made easily available, will they report on the current opinions of the friends of Obama that MSM was calling mainstream last week?"

MCCAIN: Weaker Than Advertised?

While liberal bloggers worry that the protracted Dem primary is hurting the Dems' chances against McCain, most still believe that McCain is quite beatable:

• Marshall: "Right now McCain is enjoying his post-nomination-clinching honeymoon. He's also got the field completely clear. No one's out there whacking him everyday, which means the press has no McCain-whacking stories to churn through. On the other hand, the Democrats are beating each other senseless. They daily hit on each others' weaknesses, which not only airs their dirty laundry, and gets the press to talk about it. It also breeds resentment between the supporters of the Democratic candidates, thus pushing up the number Democrats saying they're unwilling to vote for the possible nominee. Put that all together and John McCain is enjoying the most favorable environment he's going to get right now and the Democrat (whoever is the nominee) is probably suffering the worst. And with all that, the race appears to be essentially tied."
• Digby: "To me, this primary is actually a good thing for the fall. All this hand wringing strikes me as typical Democratic nervous nellie-ism. A huge increase in Democratic voter registration, building of strong ground operations in most states, new technologies being beta tested, lots of media coverage and battle testing for the nominee are of benefit to the nominee in the fall. Meanwhile, the Democrats stay at center stage while McCain wanders around in obscurity, failing to raise money and leaving a trail of gaffes in his wake. As long as they don't know at whom to aim their fire the Republicans can't cement their narrative. In the end, I remain convinced that we are going into an election that is so fundamentally seismic that either [Obama or Clinton] can win it, even if more closely than we might want, due to the breakthrough nature of their campaigns."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn notes that McCain appears stuck at 45% in head-to-head matchups against both Obama and Clinton: "That 45 percent figure [may represent] a ceiling of his support. After all, barring some outside shock to the political system, there is no reason to think McCain's numbers will go up. People already have overwhelmingly positive feelings about him -- stronger than about either of the Democratic candidates. They see him as a likeable, principled war hero whom they trust on national security. Very few realize that he has supported privatizing Social Security, that he opposes universal health insurance, that he supports free trade without qualification, and so on. Once the voters learn these things, at least some of them are likely to abandon him."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I agree with Jon [Cohn] and then some: McCain simply isn't as strong a candidate as people seem to think he is. Factors working against him include Bush fatigue, a declining economy, his age, his need to pander heavily to the Christian right, his hawkishness in a year when the public isn't feeling very hawkish, his history of flip flopping for transparently political reasons, and a portfolio of extremely unpopular positions (like privatizing Social Security) that Democrats can make a lot of hay with in the fall. What's more -- and go ahead, call me an optimist -- I suspect that at some point there's going to be a press backlash against McCain. His media image is a bubble, sustained by a sort of childlike faith, and once that faith starts to wobble -- something that may already have started -- the bubble is likely to pop."
• Benen: "I'd take issue with Kevin [Drum]'s optimism over the media -- I've been waiting for nine years for reporters to consider a backlash against McCain, and it's never happened -- but the rest of the analysis is sound. McCain, as a candidate, isn't especially scary at all. He's clumsy, unprincipled, arrogant, often belligerent, and usually confused. [...] But taking all of this into consideration, that's all the more incentive to end the Democratic race and get the general election started. Like, now. Dems have a very powerful case to make against McCain, but they can't make it while the party is divided in half, and they're waiting until late August for a nominee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: To The Losers Go The Spoils

Radar's Josie Swindler explains how "failure pays big" for unsuccessful presidential candidates:

"[John Edwards'] meteoric rise into the national consciousness back in 2004 earned the already wealthy Breck boy a bountiful payday. The sawmill worker's son became an advisor to the hedge fund Fortress, where, by Edwards' own admission, he worked no more than a few days a month. In 2006, he earned $479,512 from Fortress alone -- $79,512 more than he would have made had he won the presidency. [...]

Nearly all presidential aspirants take advantage of the sterling array of lucrative opportunities awaiting them post-election. Dan Quayle chaired a hedge fund; Newt Gingrich (who never even declared) bellowed his way onto Fox News; Bob Dole endorsed Viagra; Al Sharpton got his own radio show; and Rudy Giuliani played himself in Anger Management, The Out-of-Towners, and Law & Order. (Though Fred Thompson's agent didn't return our calls, we expect the sleepy senator is in far greater cinematic demand nowadays than he was pre-candidacy. Someone has to play the president in all those straight-to-DVD movies.)"

LEST WE FORGET: Mmmm, Luther Burgers

Business Week describes some of the culinary perks of working at Google (h/t Alan Jacobs):

"Google's 'microkitchens' -- the snack stations within 200 feet of every worker's desk -- were like mini 7-Elevens. 'We kept adding things and adding things and adding things,' says Google's food services chief, John Dickman (who is leaving the company at the end of April). Like 20 kinds of sugared cereal. Or, in the cafeteria, the Luther Burger, a bacon-cheese number with Krispy Kreme donuts as bun. [...] When Dickman ditched the M&M's, employees argued that the measure was about costs, not calories. (A hard case to make given Google's valet parking, free massages, and bidet-equipped restrooms.) 'There were certain things they couldn't live without,' Dickman says. So the M&M's returned. But the junk-healthy ratio is now 50-50, with agave-sweetened beverages, roasted nuts, sulfate-free dried fruit, and platters of organic crudités."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

April 23, 2008

4/23: The Song Remains The Same

The netroots weren't surprised by Hillary Clinton's victory in PA, as most of them predicted it, but many were disappointed nonetheless. Most liberal bloggers believe that Clinton has no reasonable shot at the nomination, and some are urging the undeclared superdelegates to announce their endorsements now in order to prevent the race from going to the convention. Chris Bowers calls the protracted Dem primary "a bad dream we can't wake up from" and worries that it "might cost us a tremendous chance to win a big trifecta in November."

Clinton's online supporters, on the other hand, are urging Dem leaders to wait and see if Clinton can overcome Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Obama's supporters are pushing back against this argument by claiming that (a.) you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, and (b.) the popular vote isn't a legitimate measuring stick anyway.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are rejoicing at the continued chaos on the Dem side. Many are buzzing about what they perceive to be Obama's significant vulnerabilities. Others are excitedly discussing the "worried" Dem superdelegates and urging them to think hard before nominating Obama. Markos Moulitsas would probably dismiss this "advice" as concern trolling, and perhaps he would be right to do so. Nevertheless, it is clear that conservatives are feeling increasingly confident about John McCain's chances against either Dem.

DEM FIELD: Right Back Where We Started From

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I'd say the real story is that this leaves us basically where we were. It was a decisive win for Hillary but that was the expectation. Going into tonight I think the dividing line was about 8 points. Closer than that and the story would have been that Obama didn't win but closed the margin (which is how it looked early in the evening). A bigger margin than that and the story would be that Hillary got her big victory. So the 10 point spread is close to the dividing line but on Hillary's side of it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "A landslide win by Hillary Clinton (as predicted by initial polls in March) might have fundamentally reshaped the race. A narrow win by Hillary Clinton (as predicted by early exit polls released last night) would have made it difficult for Clinton to continue. So, what happens? She wins by 9.4% -- a number Clinton supporters round up to call it a double-digit win, and Obama supporters round down for the opposite reason. Clinton's victory was decisive and impressive, but the margin fits nicely into that middle ground. It's big enough to give Clinton a boost, but not big enough to change the overall dynamics of the race. It's big enough to keep the campaign going for quite a while, but not big enough to compel uncommitted superdelegates to get off the fence. In other words, after six weeks of campaigning in the Keystone State, and about $40 million of investment, the Democratic Party is largely where it was a month ago."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Once again, the most annoying result appears to be the actual result. This feels like a bad dream we can't wake up from, and a terrible run of bad luck that might cost us a tremendous chance to win a big trifecta in November."
• The New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "[Clinton] only marginally improved her chances of winning the nomination, and they weren't high to begin with. [...] The bottom line is that Hillary needs an Obama meltdown to have a real path to the nomination. After all the uproar about Jeremiah Wright and bittergate, that didn't come close to happening [last night]. What did happen was that all the people who think the extended nomination fight is killing party got a lot more depressed."

Open Left's Matt Stoller tries to cheer up his fellow liberal bloggers: "Democrats are going to be fine. The most significant result of the night is in Mississippi's 1st district, not Pennsylvania...In MS-01, Democrats forced a run-off...and this is an R+10 district. [...] The public hates Republicans, and larger macro factors are at play. Don't get distracted by noise. It's fun to bite your nails and fret about how Democrats are tearing themselves apart, which of course I heard plenty of on the various cable shows. But whatever. Obama's probably going to take the nomination as Clinton doesn't have enough to win, and her annoyed supporters will move to Obama after she endorses him. And then macro factors, the economy and Iraq, and McCain's general insanity and old crazy man persona is going to hurt him badly. No one likes Republicans, even in R+10 districts."

DEM FIELD II: Overstaying Her Welcome

• Moulitsas: "[Clinton]'s lost this election. She is desperate. Her website forwards to her donation page, which would be sad and tragic if she wasn't hell bent on bringing her party down. We've got two weeks left in this contest. North Carolina and Indiana will finish this thing off."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "There's still no path to the nomination for Hillary, just a path to destruction. Can someone ask Hillary Clinton how she intends to secure the nomination? And, have her explain it in real terms -- without spin, without obfuscation, without making up new rules and without pretending that she always wanted Michigan and Florida to count. Hillary can't tell you how she wins it. She can't because there is no way she can win the nomination."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "[Clinton]'s not going to quit any time soon. After all, if Senator McCain wins in November, 2012 is her's to lose. [...] As I said on the Mike O'Meara Show today, she's in it to win it -- in 2012."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. [...] It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the 'right' way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the 'right' states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to 'close the deal', shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to 'close the deal' against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the 'popular vote', but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. [...] And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is."

Meanwhile, Tom Hayden decries the Clinton camp's tactics: "It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with Fox News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as 'unelectable' to Democratic super-delegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House whether or not she is the nominee. [...] If Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating."

DEM FIELD III: Time To Get Off The Fence, Supersdelegates

Several liberal bloggers don't think Clinton has a reasonable chance of winning the nomination and want the undeclared superdelegates to make their decisions now:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I have to say that I'm getting really tired of this. All the superdelegates should just say who they're voting for and bring this to the end. If they want to back Hillary Clinton despite Obama's majority in elected delegates, they should say so. Or if they want Barack Obama to be the nominee, they should say so. The idea that in two weeks we'll have another inconclusive primary, then another, then another, then another and then the superdelegates make up their mind is inane -- everyone else who follows politics can decide."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "I certainly share Matt Yglesias's frustration regarding the annoyingly-reluctant superdelegates. Frankly, I think the superdelegates have all picked their horse already. They're just waiting for the appropriate political 'cover' -- and PA voters didn't provide it tonight. If these people were inclined to support Clinton, they would have hopped on the bandwagon a long time ago. So they're just waiting for the slam dunk plus foul to jump in and endorse Obama. [...] Maybe it's time to focus some of the pressure currently directed at Clinton toward the superdelegates themselves. Enough already."
• dday: "I'm with Matt Yglesias -- this kind of has to end. There really isn't a whole lot more information that superdelegates are going to get. There's a saturation level that has been reached. We know the strengths and weaknesses of these candidates. We know what demographics they win against one another and what demos they lose. About half the Democrats in the country like Clinton and about half like Obama. She's from the Northeast and he's from the Midwest, and they get a tilt in their favor in each of those regions. He can't knock her out because she's really good at campaigning, and she was swamped by him early because he's really good at campaigning. The level of competition is far higher here than it will be in the fall against John McCain, actually. So the superdelegates can make their choice. They could make it today."

DEM FIELD IV: It's The Popular Vote, Stupid!

Pro-Clinton bloggers are portraying the popular vote count, not the pledged delegate count, as the key metric for superdelegates:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The Clinton campaign needs to talk more about the popular vote. They have been taking a bigger picture view, and arguing about the GE and electability, but they need to bring it down a few notches of process, and put Obama on the defensive. The ~215K margin of victory by Clinton provides them with enough votes to take the popular vote lead, counting Florida and Michigan. It's a two-fer in that sense, providing a winning metric and making Obama say that FL & MI voters don't count. And with that, change the delegate number needed from 2025 to 2209."
• Taylor Marsh: "Obama is keeping Florida and Michigan from being counted [because] he can't afford to have the popular vote count in those states. [...] Clinton's popular vote is rising. Now we're waiting for the margins and how big her victory will be in Pennsylvania. This will matter to Clinton, but more importantly, to superdelegates."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "The superdelegates are going to be doing some serious thinking about electability. Paticularly when they consider the popular vote. They can consider Florida and Michigan in the popular vote even if the DNC doesn't. You can't disenfranchise MI and FL and expect to carry those states in November. This race is far from over."

DEM FIELD V: You Can't Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game!

Daily Kos' PocketNines, an Obama supporter, pushes back against the popular vote argument:

• "Point Number 1: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire. They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers. [...] Concrete Example: Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary. He would have never gone to Idaho. Duh."
• Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself. Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri. Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates. Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?
• Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote. In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone. Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open)."

Yglesias also doesn't consider the popular vote a legitimate measuring stick: "Suppose Hillary Clinton...manages to pull ahead of Obama in the popular vote total. I still don't see how that could possibly secure her the nomination as long as the national polling looks anything like this. The superdelegates are obviously free to take into consideration whatever they like, but I assume that anyone contemplating bucking the elected delegate totals is going to be more interested in the current opinion of his or her constituents than in months-old vote totals -- a huge share of HRC's votes came from wins on Super Tuesday before Obama's big surge in the national polls."

DEM FIELD VI: Pass The Popcorn!

Conservative bloggers continue to enjoy the protracted Dem primary:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Superdelegates are likely worried and wonder whether either one of the two remaining candidates might be too damaged to lead the Democratic party on to November. And party elders responsible for uniting the Democrats in anticipation of November -- Howard Dean, I'm looking at you! -- must be beside themselves with fury and terror. Meanwhile, thanks to Republicans, the stock in popcorn will likely go through the roof. With primaries in Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky coming up, the stage may very well be set for a few more Clinton wins. This will at least go through June 3rd and the chances have increased significantly that Democrats will go to their convention deadlocked. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Denver. They will be uttering curse words in hotel suites that have not even been invented yet."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Democrats have discovered an ugly truth: neither of the two candidates left will unite the party, and for good reason. They're both lousy candidates. People like Obama more on a personal level, but both carry significant negatives now, and both candidates have contributed to them. Hillary Clinton's Tuzla Dash will guarantee her defeat in November, and if not, Bill Clinton apparently will. Hillary now gets less of the African-American vote than Republicans -- only 8% in Pennsylvania. Obama can't even buy a victory despite having more money than Croesus, and he has lost every big state the Democrats need to win in November. [...] Obama's supposed inevitability should have swept him into victory at this late stage. If he can't swing undecided Democrats, he won't win independents or centrist Republicans in November against John McCain."

Conservative bloggers are also delighted that Clinton is "softening Obama up for McCain":

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "If Hillary can't win the nomination -- and it's clearly very, very hard for her -- she's basically a stalking horse for McCain. She's preparing the demographic ground for McCain, by getting white working-class Democrats used to (if you will) not voting for Obama. And she's softening Obama up for McCain, prodding at and exposing her fellow Democrats' weaknesses."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "Rich, Hill's been a stalking horse for McCain for some time now. That's why every anti-Obama ad she makes -- the 3am-in-the-White-House thing, the 'Who's got what it takes?' Osamarama -- turns into a pro-McCain ad. She's become the equivalent of those extras the Oscar producers hire to sit in the stars' seats during rehearsal."

DEM FIELD VII: Tottering At The Edge Of The Abyss?

Conservatives are delighting at what they perceive to be Obama's enormous weaknesses, and many are talking up Clinton's chances:

• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large states -- CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. -- that will determine the fall election. And yet not to nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in November 2000."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "The Democrats currently have as their front-runner a man who couldn't win seven of [the ten most populous states]. A man who couldn't win two of the three reliably Blue states. A man who won none of the four that are generally considered to be battleground states this year. But hey: he won Idaho and Wyoming, right? Best. Primary. Ever."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Barack Obama had 6 weeks to demonstrate that he could improve his connection with the Democratic base over the Ohio results. He outspent Hillary Clinton 3-1. And he didn't move the dial one inch. Not one inch. In fact, in a number of cases, he actually lost ground. [...] Condescension loses votes, and Obama is losing votes. That's stuff that the Democratic super-delegates need to think about."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Hillary is no spoiler; she is very much in the race, I think, and is right to stay in to the end, even if that means the convention. With all of the new information that keeps coming to light about Wright, [Tony] Rezko, [Bill] Ayers and [Bernadine] Dohrn, I'm sure many superdelegates are worried about what the voters may learn about Obama himself, as well as his associates. Notwithstanding the constant reports of superdelegates announcing for one candidate or the other, the fact is that at the convention, they can vote for whomever they want. So I think the race is far from over."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The good people of Pennsylvania may have realized, as last week's debate and the 'bitter' comments have highlighted, that there is much that the country has yet to learn about Barack Obama -- and they may be reluctant to take a gamble on an aloof candidate about whom so much remains unknown...especially when what's coming to light raises some legitimate and troubling questions."

RedState's Dan McLaughlin still thinks Obama -- albeit a weakened Obama -- will win the nomination: "I still think there's no way [Clinton] can get the superdelegates to give her the nomination; even if were to up and decide en masse that Obama is by far the weaker general election candidate (a point that remains fiercely debatable), he represents three factions of the party (African-American voters, hard-left anti-war activists, and young people with little or no prior voting history) who are most likely to react poorly to the perception that their candidate won at the polls but was sold out in a back room deal. And at that point, the long-term damage to the party from backing Hillary will outweigh considerations of who could win this one. That said, the Democrats do have to worry that to the extent that momentum is at all discernible in this race, their likely nominee has essentially negative momentum. [...] Obama can probably still run out the clock, but he's going to end with the worst run-up to the convention since Gerald Ford in 1976. And the real finish line, of course, is in November."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle agrees: "Even after last night, Clinton cannot win the nomination under any scenario in which she does not herself invite general election defeat. If they go all the way to the convention, the Democrats will be throwing away some of their biggest advantages over McCain. If they take the nomination away from the winner of the popular vote and pledged delegates, they will be throwing away some of their most enthusiastic and loyal voters. Obama is a very risky candidate. If it were earlier in the process, that would be a powerful argument for Clinton. But at this point, the biggest risk for the Democrats is not defining McCain while their cash and organizational advantages are at their greatest, and spending the next few weeks defining each other instead."

OBAMA: Either You're With Us Or You're With The Terrorists, Obama

Conservative bloggers continue to discuss Obama's connections with ex-Weathermen Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn:

• Hinderaker: "When Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer decided to retire in 1995, she hand-picked local left-winger Barack Obama as her successor. In order to introduce Obama to influential liberals in the district, she held a function at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This was, really, the beginning of Obama's political career, and it linked him forever with Ayers and Dohrn, with whom, as his campaign has acknowledged, he continues to have a friendly relationship. [...] Barack Obama has declined to repudiate or distance himself from his neighbors, supporters and friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. There is a certain consistency of perspective among Obama's friends and mentors, which can be summed up in Jeremiah Wright's memorable phrase: 'God damn America.'"
• Morrissey: "Barack Obama tried to shrug off the radical past of his associate on the Woods Foundation board as having ended when Obama was eight, but now it looks more like the 80s. [...] Only 14 years after these murders, Barack Obama went to the house of the apparent accomplice in these robberies and murders and asked for her support in his first political campaign. He sat on panels with Ayers in Chicago discussing politics and worked with him on the Woods Foundation board. This isn't just some neighbor with whom he accidentally crossed paths; the Obamas sought out Ayers and Dohrn and maintained political ties with them at least through 2002."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The problem for Obama isn't that his ties to Ayers are so close (that we know of so far). Ayers hosted a party that was, effectively, the first fundraiser for Obama. They served on the Woods Foundation board together, and he spoke on some panels. That's not as close a relationship as with, say, his mentor Jeremiah Wright, but it's a lot closer than most Americans will ever come to a person who set bombs in public buildings. But what is really revealing about this mess for Obama is that when asked about it, the candidate reacted with a mix of surprise and indignation...He clearly felt that George Stephanopoulos asking about this was completely out of bounds. That no one in their right mind could possibly be concerned, disgruntled, or disapproving of associating with someone like William Ayers."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "We know what Dohrn and Ayers were thinking about the U.S. in 2007. We know that they know Obama well, and have 'vetted' him. And we know they supported him from 1995 forward."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has created a "handy-dandy guide" to illustrate "which terrorists support which Democrat." Malkin writes: "Democratic Presidential Candidates: They love America; they're just friends with terrorists. Honest. All those bombers meant nothing to me, baby. Now come here and give us a little vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Hillary Uniting Americans?

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks so:

"There is no doubt this contest is hurtful to the Democratic Party. [...] But I think that this is actually helping bring Republicans and Democrats together. Let me give you three examples...

1.) I personally find myself respecting Hillary more than ever in the past. My guess is, other conservatives feel the same way. Sure, she may be a socialist, but she is at least tough and doesn't give up. [...]

2.) Just as I may have a new-found respect for Hillary, Obama supporters are finally seeing the real Bill Clinton. Yes -- he's slimy. That's what we've been telling you guys for decades now!

3.) A close friend of mine (who also happens to be a liberal) is now a frequent [Townhall.com] reader. Why? She's supporting Hillary, and for the first time ever, she and I see eye to eye on things like the liberal media. She has always viewed herself as a liberal, but now she is seeing first-hand just how quixotic and dangerous the Obama supporters are."

LEST WE FORGET: Botanists Vow Not To Discuss Botany During After-Work Drinks

From The Onion:

"AMHERST, MA -- After years of promising not to discuss work after hours but always failing, botanists at Hampshire College's Agricultural Studies Farm Center told reporters yesterday they have finally made a pledge to ban any and all talk of plants during drinks this Friday. 'We always say we're going to leave it at the lab, but when you get a group of us botanists together, the subject of how mycology falls under the umbrella of ethnobotany is bound to come up,' said Dr. Cynthia Devlin [...]. 'But this time we mean it. The first person to even think about bringing up petioles or lateral buds is out.' According to Devlin, the group's efforts to separate phytopathology and pleasure will be greatly aided by the decision to move their weekly get-together to Marty's Bar & Grille from the Rainforest Café."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

April 22, 2008

4/22: Is It 3 A.M. In Iran?

Most of the leading liberal bloggers expect Hillary Clinton to win today's PA primary by a 7% or 8% margin, although some are predicting a double-digit win. The general consensus is that unless Barack Obama manages an upset victory or finishes within 5 points of Clinton, the Dem race will continue into May (and probably beyond). Since Obama appears to have a lock on the pledged delegate lead, many bloggers will be looking to see if Clinton can significantly cut into Obama's popular vote lead after today's contest. Many bloggers believe that the popular vote will be a key metric (perhaps the key metric) in Clinton's efforts to persuade superdelegates to support her.

Meanwhile, bloggers on both the left and right are buzzing about Clinton's last-minute PA ad (which includes video footage of Osama bin Laden) and her recent tough talk on Iran. While most liberal bloggers don't find the PA ad particularly offensive, many are complaining that it essentially makes the case for John McCain (and conservative bloggers happily agree!). On the other hand, liberal bloggers are genuinely upset about Clinton's Iran comments, calling them "belligerent" and "over the top".

DEM FIELD: Pennsylvania Predictions

Several liberal bloggers are making their final PA predictions:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "My gut tells me that the 6% gap we have seen in most polls is accurate, and that when the undecided are factored in the final margin will rise to 7%. So, I'm going with Clinton 53.5%--46.5% Obama."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Most polls agree the race is in the 6 or 7 point range. [...] It shouldn't go unnoticed, however, that the polls showing Clinton gaining are more recent by a hair and the only tracking poll in the state is among them, which, even though it is Zogby, tells me that undecideds are breaking late for Clinton as they have in other Clinton country states. [...] My prediction: Clinton by 8%."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Clinton 54--Obama 46. [...] That's actually the safe prediction, since it's what the polls tell us is going to happen. I could've done the 'play the expectations game' thing and pegged it at an 11-point Clinton victory, which is more than possible (I'd give it a 30 percent chance of happening). I could've gone out on a limb and predicted a 1-3 point Clinton victory, citing the large voter registration gains in Obama territory (a 20 percent chance of happening). But an 8-point Clinton victory 'feels' right. It would unfortunately not be enough to conclusively push her from the race, though the popular vote and delegate gains would not be enough to give her any hope of catching Obama in either category. In fact, he'd likely win that back and more in two weeks in North Carolina and Indiana."

DEM FIELD II: The Clinton-Drudge Link?

Several bloggers are discussing Matt Drudge's report that the Clinton camp's internal polling shows the NY senator with an 11-point lead in PA:

• TPM's Josh Marshall is suspicious: "Even if you assume that the Clinton campaign is getting numbers that are making them confident of a good night tomorrow night, it simply makes no sense for them to broadcast the numbers like this. Here's why. The game is heavily about expectations at this point. And the public polls are showing a fairly close race. Far better for the Clinton camp to keep expectations right there and surprise people with a low double-digit win. Switching expectations to 10 points, only to meet those expectations makes no sense, especially since Clinton started 6 weeks ago with a 15 or 20 point margin. Given the improbability of the leak and the unreliability of the source, I think we need to consider whether is a set up rather than a genuine leak."
• Moulitsas: "As Josh Marshall points out, if accurate, this is not a good leak by the Clinton campaign. Remember, Drudge rules Mark Halperin's world, hence disproportionately influences the conventional wisdom. At a time when the campaign (via [PA Gov Ed] Rendell and other surrogates) has been moving the goalposts for a 'significant' Clinton victory around 5-6 percent, here is Drudge helping reset it back into the double digits. Given that this race is no longer about raw data (since Obama has won that already), but about 'expectations', the Clinton camp had every reason to want to lower the bar as much as possible."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum disagrees: "I think we're beyond the expectations game. Better to get the word out that 'momentum is building,' or some such, in order to rally the troops, set the tone for news coverage, and try to regain a little bit of that old 'inevitability' magic. I have no idea where Drudge got his leak, or even whether it's true, but at a do-or-die stage like the one Hillary is in now, excitement and momentum are more important than the media expectations game, I think."

DEM FIELD III: The Expectations Game

Obama's online supporters, expecting Clinton to get a big win tonight, are trying to set expectations:

• Moulitsas: "Clinton lead by 19 points [in PA] after Super Tuesday in SUSA polling, by even more in other polls. If she comes in under that, it'll mean that she is bleeding support. It's that simple. The supers can decide whether they want to hitch their wagons with the candidate who is trying to spur an intra-party civil war, who has lost on the math, who will lose in the popular vote, and who is losing support rather than gaining it. Or they can side with the winner."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hillary's people have reportedly told Drudge that she expects to win by 11 points, and even Obama is saying that he expects Hillary to win. Which gets us back to something I've been saying for a while. [Today]'s vote won't change a thing. Obama will still be ahead in the delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won. Hillary will win Pennsylvania, which we already knew would happen. Hillary will still be in a race she can't win, her people will still be crowing that Obama couldn't even win a big state like Pennsylvania, and Obama's people will rightfully respond that if they suck, then she must really suck, since she's still losing to him. At some point, Hillary is going to have to explain to the voters, and the SuperDelegates, under what possible scenario she wrenches the nomination away from Obama, short of an asteroid landing on his head."

Meanwhile, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat summarizes the CW concerning Clinton's margin of victory: "Less than 6 will be viewed as an Obama 'win' and the signal for Clinton to drop out. 6 to 9 and status quo remains. Double digits and it will be considered a Clinton win and Obama will still have work to do. Indiana then becomes the next KO opportunity."

CLINTON: Nuke, Nuke Iran?

Liberal bloggers are confused and alarmed by Clinton's recent tough talk on Iran:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "[Clinton]'s crazy. A massive new security commitment in this volatile region is just insane. And the belligerent rhetoric -- 'totally obliterate them' -- what the hell? It's like 7th graders with nuclear weapons. I'm having a harder and harder time seeing the difference between McCain and Clinton. Perhaps Clinton will be more saddened than McCain's gleefully militarism as she launches an attack on Iraq, but that's just tone."
• Marshall: "I'm not sure there's much to say about Sen. Clinton's threat to destroy the entire country of Iran with nuclear weapons if they first attack Israel with nuclear weapons other than it seems like garden-variety if unusually incendiary campaign rhetoric. But aren't we leaving out of this equation the fact that Israel has a large nuclear arsenal and one specifically designed (via the use of nuclear-armed submarines and other methods) to survive a first strike and still exact massive retaliation on an attacker? Israel has nuclear weapons. For precisely this purpose."
• Aravosis: "In the space of 12 hours, Hillary has twice suggested that she'd nuke Iran, but now her staff is saying that she didn't mean to imply that she would. [...] This is an incredibly dangerous topic. And she made a mess of it, repeatedly, to the point where her staff had to get involved to try to make amends, so that now our enemies and our allies have no idea what Hillary's position is on war with Iran, the defense of Israel, and the possible use of US nuclear weapons."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "In an interview with ABC News, Hillary Clinton said 'In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.' But then Howard Wolfson told Ben Smith that neither this talk of total obliteration nor her talk during the debate about 'massive retaliation' should be understood as threats to use nuclear weapons. But then she went on [Keith] Olbermann later and said we should 'make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.' John Aravosis is confused and so am I. If these aren't threats to use nuclear weapons, then what are they? Massive retaliation has a pretty clear meaning in this context. And I still don't understand why Israel's own nuclear deterrent isn't looming larger in these conversations."

Conservative bloggers are also buzzing about Clinton's Iran comments:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I find myself in the very curious position here of being to the left of Hillary Clinton on Iran. Rather than have another debate on whether the U.S. needs to add to Israel's already impressive deterrent capabilities, let me ask you this: At whom is this very heavy-handed pander directed? Pretty obviously it's aimed at Israel's lefty supporters, but are there so many undecideds among them that the net gain from this will offset the net loss among less ardent Israel supporters who'll be predictably freaked out by it?"
• NRO's Mark Steyn replies to Allahpundit's question: "The point presumably is not that anyone in the Democratic base wants to totally obliterate Iran (whose leadership has, after all, endorsed Obama) but that your willingness to pretend you want to reassures the base that, come the general, you're not going to be this season's neo-McGovernik fall-guy getting Swiftboated as an arugulan wimp. The Dem contest is a triumph of post-modern politics."

CLINTON II: Bin Laden? Ho Hum.

Most liberal bloggers -- including some who support Obama -- reacted with a shrug to Clinton's last-minute PA ad, which includes video footage of Osama bin Laden:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The Clinton campaign is starting to develop an m.o. -- unveil a provocative new ad in the 11th hour, right before an important contest. [...] Maybe I'm still desensitized, but like the '3 a.m.' ad, I don't really find the ad offensive at all. Including bin Laden in the commercial ratchets up the emotional intensity a bit, but all things considered, the spot seems relatively mild to me. [...] Nevertheless, I suspect we'll be hearing quite a bit about it. Any ad that includes footage of bin Laden is going to be provocative; there's no way around that. In fact, I suspect far more people will see the ad on the news (for free) than during the commercial breaks -- which, I imagine, is part of the strategy."
• Beeton: "Is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as [George W.] Bush was in 2004? Merely because the ad references bin Laden? Personally, I don't think it crosses that line. Now, I'm not naive enough to think team Clinton isn't playing on fears to some degree here, but this is simply a variation on the readiness message she's been running on for months."
• Kevin Drum: "Are the pro-Obama forces seriously trying to get their troops outraged over this latest ad from Hillary Clinton? Just because it contains a ten-second sequence of presidential crises (Depression, Pearl Harbor, gas crisis, Katrina, etc.) and flashes a half-second clip of Osama bin Laden as part of it? Spare me. Are Democratic political ads no longer even allowed to mention the fact that the next president is going to have to deal with the war on terror?"
• Big Tent Democrat: "I am with Kevin Drum on the Obama campaign's overwrought reaction to the latest Clinton ad. The reaction is overwrought and I think politically obtuse. It makes it seem like Obama really is afraid to discuss the war on terror and we know he not only is not, but it is one of his strongest arguments -- that we need to fight the war on terror not the Debacle in Iraq."

CLINTON III: What's She Trying To Say?

While most liberal bloggers weren't offended by the bin Laden imagery, many were still critical of the ad's overall message:

• Yglesias: "Some Obama elements are trying to whip me into a fit of outrageous over Hillary Clinton deciding that she wants to cross the Rudy [Giuliani] Line and enlist Osama bin Laden in her latest campaign ad. I'm not all that outraged, really, but I think the problem with this whole line of attack -- 3AM ads, etc. -- is [that it's] such a limited posture to take up. At the end of the day, if this is an election about how in uncertain times we need to flee into the arms of a strong, comforting, figure of experience and authority then that figure is John McCain. The alternative story is that in uncertain times we need to turn the pages on disastrous policies that have gotten us into our current mess. But Clinton often, from her vote to authorize the war through to a lot of her primary season gambits, seems too invested in the politics of 'toughness' to really chart a better course."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "The Clinton campaign wants you to vote for Hillary Clinton because the stock market crashed, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, [John F.] Kennedy waged the Cold War, [Nikita] Khrushchev and [Fidel] Castro stood together, and Osama bin Laden is out there somewhere. [...] Besides a bit of fear mongering (and production that makes it look like a recruiting commercial for the military), what struck me about the ad is that it appears to convey an impoverished sense of what the presidency is about. It's not just about dealing with surprise crises or being firm against our adversaries. And being president isn't only about being tough. An effective President is an effective persuader."

Other bloggers were confused by the ad's use of the Harry Truman quote, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen":

• Benen: "This [theme] has been a Clinton campaign staple since Thursday, when ABC's debate in Philadelphia drew widespread criticism. But it really doesn't make any sense. Obama criticized the debate, not because he 'couldn't stand the heat,' but because the questions were really dumb and elevated trivia over substance. What's more, it's Clinton who has complained about the media and debate questions for months (in one recent instance, she even complained about the media during a debate). In this sense, the closing message of the new commercial doesn't work at all."
• Marshall: "I must confess that I don't get this new 'can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' line from the Clinton campaign. This is supposed to be a dig at complaints from the Obama and his supporters about the questions from last week's ABC debate. But didn't Sen. Clinton's camp spend like a month complaining that the press, particularly debate questioners were being harder on her than Obama? She even complained about it during one of the debates."

CLINTON IV: Clinton-Tested, GOP-Approved

Conservative bloggers love Clinton's latest ad. Like Yglesias, they think that this ad makes a strong case for McCain:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Wow, Senator Clinton. Thanks. All we have to do is cut off the last three seconds of this, replace it with a similar approval from Senator McCain, and we've got a hypothetical McCain campaign ad for the national election. I say 'hypothetical' because it presumes that that the only candidate left that it'd work on is the Democratic nominee. Clever of you to find a method of attack that doesn't get in the way of the VRWC; not that we're not going to go after you in the general anyway, of course."
• Allahpundit: "First the 3 a.m. ad, now this: It's awfully sporting of her to keep making the case for John McCain."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Clinton's ad...makes me think that as president we need an older gentleman who has survived tough times and is going to get angry about our current challenges. And it makes me hope that John McCain will beat Obama."

On the left side of the blogosphere, AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner is alarmed by this trend of conservative bloggers embracing Clinton's ads: "I personally don't really care what imagery Clinton chooses to use in her campaign ad. But some conservatives seem pretty convinced you could just cut off the 'I approved this message' part and replace it with the same from McCain and have a Republican spot good to go for the general. [...] That can't be good."

CLINTON V: Hillary, You Got Some 'Splainin' To Do!

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Clinton for making disparaging remarks about "the activist base of the Democratic Party" at a closed-door fundraiser and for refusing to explain how exactly she "[doesn't] agree" with MoveOn:

• Arianna Huffington: "It will be interesting to see if the media allow Hillary Clinton to get away with refusing to explain what she meant when she said (on a tape obtained by HuffPost) that she didn't agree with MoveOn.org's positions on foreign policy and national security. Our Sam Stein tried to get her campaign to elaborate on her comments, but they refused. They also refused to comment on why Hillary had repeated the lie -- articulated most notably by Karl Rove -- that MoveOn was against intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11. So it's not only the media that have internalized the Right's framing and messages -- but also many of the leaders of the Democratic Party."
• Moulitsas: "Obama was forced to clarify and explain remarks taped in a fundraiser of his own. But Clinton, apparently, doesn't think party activists are owed an explanation. My suspicions? We disagree with her on her decision to grant Bush authority to invade Iraq, and her subsequent refusal to atone for that mistake. We also disagree with her on her decision to grant similar authority to Bush to attack Iran -- a step I'm convinced became the beginning of the end of her candidacy, reminding party activists that Clinton wasn't just refusing to apologize for her Iraq vote, but refusing to learn from it. That's what I suspect she's talking about. But why is she so afraid to tell us those things to our face? Why talk trash behind our backs at closed door meetings with her fat cat donors, rather than clearly and unambiguously tell us those things to our face?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Democrats, be very careful about attacking MoveOn and other progressive organizations for fun and profit. The right has done a helluva job on the ACLU over the past decades. I cannot express how important it is that we not assist them in taking a hatchet to MoveOn."

OBAMA: Waffling?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama for declining to answer a reporter's question about Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, telling the reporter, "Just let me eat my waffle":

• Michelle Malkin: "First Read has a video snippet of Barack Obama's new question avoidance strategy: Stuffing his mouth with waffles. No signs of any arugula on the plate. But the waffles worked. He never did answer the question about his thoughts on jihadi postman Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas. Mission accomplished!"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama waffles on Hamas...literally. [...] I suppose when reporters ask presidential candidates questions on the campaign trail they are engaging in the old kind of politics."
• Moe Lane: "Obama doesn't know how to talk to the press. Sure, he can make a nice speech, but his off-the-cuff stuff has a real tendency to end up being foot-in-mouth. Shoot, after last Wednesday's debate debacle, I'm surprised that the campaign's letting him out in public at all. I suppose that it'd look bad if they didn't, or something."

Interestingly, Allahpundit defends Obama: "[Michelle Malkin] slaps a new logo on the Messiah and mocks him for using his breakfast to duck yet another tough question. To which [I respond] by pointing out that his team's already addressed this subject (as much as they're planning to) and politely noting that if it's evasiveness about Carter and Hamas that you want, start with [Bill Clinton]. Quote: 'Look, I'm trying to help Hillary. I don't want to say anything that'll complicate her life.' Exit verdict: If the man can't enjoy his waffle then the terrorists have already won."

MCCAIN: Getting The Mac's Back (Again)

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Michael Leahy's Washington Post article about McCain's temper problem:

• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Bogus facts. Clearly biased editorial decisions. Selective quotation. Old stories. Not a story. Michael Leahy and his editors should know better and be ashamed of themselves."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The press has seen fit to focus on John McCain's 'temper' issues. I'm not sure they've earned the credibility to make a go of it. Why? Because, after all, we had a president from 1993-2001 who had a temper so volcanic that he clearly cannot control it -- and yet, we heard nary a word until he was safely out of office. [...] Let's be honest -- being prone to temper fits isn't a fabulous trait. But if it wasn't worth reporting on when Bill Clinton was president, what's changed? Especially when John McCain has demonstrated that he has infinitely more self-control in a range of areas than Clinton ever did."

Power Line's John Hinderaker doesn't think this story will hurt McCain: "I doubt that this attack will get the Dems far, for a couple of reasons. One, McCain is 71 years old. If he had a serious character defect, one would expect it to be manifested by now. [...] Two, the stories the Dems have come up with -- McCain yelled at another Senator! -- are weak. Most voters probably think it's a good thing for Senators to be yelled at now and then. For the attack to have legs, McCain would have to have a history of physical altercations, like Al Franken, or be suspected of beating his wife or something of the sort. As it is, I think most voters will agree with McCain that any confrontations he has had in the past are simply an indication of how passionately he cares about his country and about public policy."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "Most of the anecdotes cited by the Post, as well as those that I know of, date back many years. His temperament on the campaign trail, particularly during the time when he was on the canvass, have far exceeded my expectations. [...] The key is how McCain conducts himself going forward. The public will form its judgment of the candidate based on what it sees, not on old Washington anecdotes, many of which involve people who currently support McCain. But McCain has less margin for error than his opponent will have, partly because the MSM by-and-large wants him to lose and partly because of his track record."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's About The Popular Vote, Yo!

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner thinks Obama should focus on winning votes -- not delegates -- in the remaining contests:

"At this point in the campaign, Hillary Clinton has two possible routes to victory, one of them being a giant scandal. The other is that she wins the popular vote, and wins over superdelegates and voters angry over Florida in 2000 and frusturated by the Party's insane delegate-allocation rules. So, if I were Obama, I wouldn't much care about the delegate count [in PA]; instead, I'd be trying to run up my numbers in the most populous counties. After all, it doesn't matter one bit whether Obama goes into the convention ahead of Senator Clinton by 120 or 110 or 105 pledged delegates. Clinton needs a political earthquake, and a come-from-behind popular vote win may be her only chance."

LEST WE FORGET: Unsuccessful Bar Pick-Ups

From Overheard in New York:

Pretentious hipster: So where are you ethnically from?
Indian girl: India.
Pretentious hipster: Well, I know that, but are you from Bangladesh, Pakistan, or India?
Indian girl: India.
Pretentious hipster: Ohhh, you're Native American.
Indian girl: I'll take that drink now.

-- Welcome to the Johnsons Bar, Lower East Side

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

April 21, 2008

4/21: Moving On From Clinton?

The big story in the liberal blogosphere this weekend was the Huffington Post report that Hillary Clinton made disparaging comments about "the activist base of the Democratic Party" (and specifically MoveOn.org) at a Feb. fundraiser. The netroots are angry that Clinton criticized the grassroots organization that's played such a big role in so many policy fights (and which was founded in response to Bill Clinton's impeachment). For the many liberal bloggers who are already upset about Clinton's recent attacks on Barack Obama (which they perceive as reinforcing right-wing narratives), this report provides more evidence that Clinton isn't completely on their side. As Markos Moulitsas summarizes, "Clinton doesn't like us and doesn't agree with us."

DEM FIELD: You Call That Journalism?

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize last week's ABC News debate, as well as the media more generally:

• Ezra Klein: "[Journalists] have a duty to inform, to turn the political conversation into a national conversation, and ensure that not too much is lost in the process. What ABC did, however, was the opposite: They played up all that was useless and uninformative and ugly and sensationalistic in the race, suggesting, to the country, that this race is nothing but meaningless entertainment, and politics in general is an irrelevant enterprise that should be played for shouts and giggles."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I was mulling over the ABC debate this morning and the moderators' claim that knocking Obama with a more or less uninterrupted stream of Swift Boat gotchas was justified by focusing the debate on 'electability'. And it occurred to me that we have now crossed an important threshold where the Republican operative cadre has sufficiently disciplined and trained the press (and more than a few Democrats) that their own role may simply be redundant."
• Marshall continues: "Think about it. Organized campaigns of falsehoods, distortions and smears used to be something most people thought of as a bad thing, if not something that's ever been too far removed from American politics. Now, however, members of the prestige press appear to see it not as a matter of guilty slumming but rather a positive journalistic obligation to engage in their own organized campaign of falsehood, distortion and smear on the reasoning that it anticipates the eventual one to be mounted by Republicans. In other words, we've gotten past the debatable rationale that journalists have no choice but to cover smears and distortions once they're floated into the mainstream debate to thinking that journalists need to seek out and air smears and distortions on the grounds of electability, as though the mid-summer GOP Swiftboating was another de facto part of the election process like primaries, conventions and debates."
• Firedoglake's Eli responds to Marshall's post: "Josh has perfectly encapsulated the what, but I think he's missed the why. The media don't actively smear Democrats (and tiptoe around Republicans) because the GOP has duped, seduced, or bullied them (although that's a convenient alibi), they do it because their Republican corporate ownership dictates it, whether explicitly or implicitly."

In addition, several liberal bloggers promoted a Friday protest at the ABC/Disney headquarters in Burbank, CA:

• dday: "OK, so everyone's frustrated with the content-free, brainless ABC News debate the other night. [...] The moderators are unrepentant and congenitally wired to not get it. So we're going to have to take to the streets -- the mean streets of Burbank, California. We want to know if ABC/Disney executives can pass the [Charles] Gibson/[George] Stephanopoulos flag pin litmus test -- it's obviously the most important issue facing the nation, so are they sufficiently patriotic?"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Like it or not, the massive pushback against ABC fueled by outrage over Wednesday's debate has been an impressive mobilization of the left, especially online. [...] As I've written before, it's really important that the blogs serve as a check against the media no matter who wins the nomination. It was after all out of the vacuum of any media accountability that the blogs emerged. So I'm excited to see the Courage Campaign (for whom I do part time work) launching an action in Los Angeles today."

DEM FIELD II: Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are mocking liberal bloggers for their response to the ABC debate:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I really hate to defend ABC here, but asking Obama about the flag pin controversy, his racist spiritual mentor, and his association with unrepentant terrorists among other things makes perfect sense. [...] If Obama does turn out to be the Democratic nominee, ABC did him a huge favor by letting him know that he will have to deal with these questions. [...] Quite frankly, if he wants to be President, he is going to have to come up with some better answers to explain his lack of patriotism, why he thinks terrorists are great people to pal around with, and why he puts so much stock in the advice of someone who hates white people and America."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "I was on [Bill] O'Reilly last night talking about the whiny uproar over the debate. They're icing the kicker, here, and it may work on the next left-leaning moderator charged with working a debate. They're very sensitive to being called right-wing tools, and the Left blogs know it."

Other conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's debate performance:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama has to show that he can handle tough questioning, and not just to get through the primaries against Hillary Clinton. He can keep claiming to have been victimized by ABC, but Americans don't usually elect people for whining. He has to overcome a little hostility from the press, or voters will rightly wonder whether he can handle himself under much more pressure once ensconced in the White House. Even the superdelegates may be asking themselves that question."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Was media confidence in [Obama] so shaky that a few tough questions from ABC moderators could send his standings into a tailspin? [...] But all this fretting is really to be expected: Obama has staked everything on his verbal acuity. When that fails, he has no safety net. He cannot point to tough campaigns or great legislative achievements to assure his base that he's been through worse. So it all comes down to sustaining the balloon of excitement and novelty he has created."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Even now, after fifteen months of campaigning, too many things happen that seem to show that Obama may not be able to take a punch in the general election. The only reason that he is standing up against Clinton is because of the delegate math and the general sense that Clinton herself has run an awful campaign. But things will be different against John McCain, who is significantly more respected and whose campaign will be much sharper than Clinton's ever was. Against McCain, missteps by Obama may actually lead to a serious loss of support."

DEM FIELD III: The Question Isn't 'Will She Win?', It's 'By How Much?'

Most liberal bloggers are predicting a solid win for Clinton in PA:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "[Obama] started with a large deficit [in PA]. And even though he's outspent Clinton by 3:1 or 4:1, and had the opportunity to target Democratic voters for 7 complete weeks, Obama doesn't look like he's on the verge of even coming close to sealing the deal through Pennsylvania. The betting, at this point, seems whether its high single-digit margin, or a 10 percent or greater blowout by Clinton."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "By virtually any measure, it is a seven-point Clinton lead in Pennsylvania. The trend is slightly in her direction, and early voting probably favors Clinton since she once led by significantly more. So, I project an 8-9% Clinton victory."
• Oliver Willis: "I say Clinton wins by 14%. Her flacks will push the idea that something major happened when in fact the dynamics of the PA race stayed the same thanks to the Clinton-McCain-Media tagteam vs. Obama. The day after the primary Obama will still have more delegates, more states, and more overall votes. At the end of the day the only way Sen. Clinton can now win the nomination is to steal it. But I think she'll have a healthy double-digit win in PA."
• BooMan, on the other hand, predicts a single-digit win: "I feel modestly more confident that Obama will win narrowly than I do that Clinton will break 10%, but the most likely scenario is that Clinton wins with a 1%-8% margin of victory."

CLINTON: She Ain't Down With MoveOn

Liberal bloggers are angry that Clinton criticized "the activist base of the Democratic Party" at a closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday. The Huffington Post's Celeste Fremon provides an audio recording of Clinton's remarks:

"Moveon.org endorsed [Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down. [...] We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Fremon adds: "Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown. The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as 'lively participants' in American democracy."

MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser responded to Clinton's remarks in a statement to the Huffington Post: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

CLINTON II: Dissing The Base

Unsurprisingly, liberal bloggers were upset by Clinton's remarks:

• Atrios: "It's certainly fair to criticize the leadership of Move On, and specific actions the group takes, but dismissing and marginalizing the entire organization is something else entirely."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "When Hillary Clinton lies about and insults the activists of MoveOn -- an organization created to support her own husband during his bogus impeachment -- you know you've entered in to some kind of crazy zone."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I've tried to stay out of the pie fights of late, but as a long-term defender of MoveOn and other progressive organizations -- this is completely unacceptable. 'MoveOn opposed military action in Afghanistan' is a Republican talking point, articulated specifically and purposefully by Karl Rove. [...] Does Hillary Clinton not want my vote either?"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This is pretty remarkable audio, Clinton attacking MoveOn -- incorrectly, in fact -- for purportedly opposing the Afghanistan War when that was not at all the case. But even more astounding than Clinton's specific attacks on MoveOn, a grassroots organization founded to defend her husband against the Republican power-grab that was the 1998 impeachment, an organization that is made up of more than three million activists, most of whom are diehard in their loyalty to the Democratic Party, is the fact that Clinton is maligning the Democratic base, specifically those who have been driven to the polls at least in part in response to the Iraq War."
• AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner: "I'm no strategist, but it seems that if you're aiming for the Democratic nomination, offending MoveOn and the Netroots is a first class disaster. I mean, if by some chance you beat Obama, you're going to want MoveOn and the Netroots to help you beat McCain, right? Especially after you've already admitted that they're some of the biggest fundraisers the party's got."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "To say this about her opponents is just wrong. But to say it about the activist base of her party -- about the people who are motivated enough to show up for caucuses and participate in the electoral process -- is insane. Hillary Clinton is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. She is trying to represent us. If she thinks that people like publius, who caucused in Texas, is worthy of contempt, or that the stunning increase in Democratic voter participation this year is not a cause for joy but a sign that the dirty f*cking hippies have taken over, why doesn't she just become a Republican? She's certainly talking like one."

Several bloggers want Clinton to explain which aspects of the party activists' views she "[doesn't] agree with":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "In short, Clinton doesn't like us and doesn't agree with us. [...] I'm curious though, what part of our foreign policy approach doesn't she agree with? The ending the war in Iraq part? I'd like more details on that one."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "What I find interesting is how Clinton insists that she does not agree with Moveon with regards to foreign policy. What exactly she mean by that? I know she hasn't apologized for her Iraq war vote, and that her surrogates seem to think that is purely tactical. This seems to belie that analysis; Clinton really doesn't think her vote was wrong and does not see the importance of a political consensus for a different foreign policy apparatus. And that's why she thinks Moveon is such a problem."

CLINTON III: Showing Her True Colors?

Several liberal bloggers think Clinton's comments reflect her real views about progressives:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Since MoveOn endorsed Hillary Clinton's opponent, it's hardly surprising that Clinton has not-so-nice things to say about MoveOn. But the bad dynamic between Clinton and MoveOn is a reminder of one of the fundamental problems with her candidacy. The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong. Only by curbing the influence of these institutions, the theory goes, can Democratic Party politicians engage in the tactical repositioning necessary to win elections. Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics. This 'crush the left, move to the right' theory of electoral political may or may not work for politicians in the short run, but to create big change you need to strengthen progressive institutions and move the entire spectrum to the left."
• Ezra Klein: "One of my concerns with Clinton has long been that she's surrounded by folks -- like Mark Penn -- who have a visceral dislike of actual progressives and a contempt for a politics that tries to win on the strength of an expanded progressive majority. The Clintonites have tended to prefer an electoral strategy that saw the liberal base an an electoral impediment, and sought to shunt them into a corner until the center could be captured through strategic moderation. If this election is strengthening Clinton's tendencies to view progressives as the 'them' to her 'us' -- a tendency she has previously demonstrated with other groups, too -- that's a problem."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, who's become one of the fiercest critics of the liberal blogosphere, disagrees: "I am a long time critic of Move On, including their idiotic General Betray Us ad. Barack Obama was smart not to vote against the Senate resolution condemning Move On. Hillary Clinton made a mistake voting against it. I find the outrage expressed by the 'Creative Class' blogs on Hillary Clinton's critique of Move On quite amusing. What most amuses me about it is how none of these blogs are asking Barack Obama to do or say anything in defense of Move On. It's funny to me because Barack Obama has studiously avoided acknowledging the existence of Move On throughout this campaign. My question for the 'Creative Class' blogs is this, if what Hillary Clinton said was so bad, how come Barack Obama won't defend Move On against Hillary Clinton's attacks?"

MCCAIN: In The Netroots' Crosshairs (Sort Of)

While much of the liberal blogosphere is consumed with the Obama-Clinton battle, a few bloggers are focusing on McCain:

• Firedoglake's TeddySanFran lays out the case against McCain: "There are a lot of reasons not to elect St McCain, reasons we must talk up, press forward, and ensure voters understand. His campaign is infested with lobbyists. His understanding of economics does not surpass that of a third-grader. He may be a kept man. He embraces a man who libeled his own family to defeat him in the South Carolina GOP primary in 2000. McCain wants young Americans to continue to fight and die in a war America was lied into, for reasons not yet made clear to us. He doesn't understand our enemies: who they are, whom their allies are, where they re-up, and why they fight. He wants America to fight more wars, against more enemies, for reasons that remain murky and poorly explained. McCain voted for torture. McCain opposed a minimum wage increase. McCain voted against making the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday and then fought it becoming a state holiday in Arizona. McCain won't support the Twenty-First Century GI Bill of Rights because, like the Bush Administration, he thinks it gives service-members too many reasons to leave the military."
• Daily Kos' SusanG criticizes McCain's "fetishization of patriotism": "There is a common thread running underneath much of what McCain supports that is often mistaken as 'liberal,' particularly by conservatives, but which is not. It is a distant cousin of proverbial nanny statism, but is far more dangerous because it postulates that the government knows best, always, and that the individual citizen's duty is to put country first, working toward a 'common destiny.' [...] Far more problematic than his age or his flip-flops or his pandering is this streak of advocating unquestioned allegiance to the state, a fetishization of patriotism, above all else."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum wants the Dem primary to end so Dems can focus on McCain: "I'm tired of Hillary, I'm tired of the insane depths of trivia the media (and the candidates) have descended to, and I don't feel like writing much about it. I'm more interested in following the almost pathological pandering and flip-flopping coming out of John McCain's camp these days -- you can practically feel the desperation if you watch closely -- but it's hard for that to get a lot of traction until the Dems finish up their race."

MCCAIN II: More MSM Bias?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Michael Leahy's Washington Post article about McCain's alleged temper problem:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Perhaps the ongoing meltdown in the Democratic Party has demoralized the partisans inside the Post, or perhaps it is a just a very slow news cycle for reporters assigned to cover John McCain. But Michael Leahy's page 1 'McCain: A Question of Temperament' is going to be an exhibit in the museum of media bias and agenda journalism for a long time. [...] McCain ought to send a thank-you to Leahy. There's nothing like a wave of agenda journalism attacks on the GOP nominee to rally conservatives to him."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "My guess is that this is an attempt to balance the coverage, but unlike the Obama story, this one comes out of the blue. Had McCain lost his temper last week and cursed someone out, then the story would seem more relevant. [...] Though I have no doubt McCain once had a bad temper, it has not been my observation. He has welcomed into the fold former political enemies. Townhall.com was pretty tough on him last year, for example, has he sought to shut-us out now that he has won the nomination? Quite the opposite. Moreover, in the past year, I have had several opportunities to see him up-close -- and under pressure -- and have not witnessed any examples of this behavior."
• Morrissey doesn't think McCain's temper will be a problem: "McCain hasn't given the media any recent eruptions and has never shown himself as irrational in his anger. Moreover, people understand and relate to anger; voters might respond better to a man who gets angry rather than contain himself in Madison Avenue packaging 24/7. Passion generates many emotions, and expecting complete dispassion from an executive may not be reasonable. Michael Dukakis lost a debate and probably an election by acting dispassionately to a hypothetical on the death penalty involving his wife Kitty [Dukakis], looking like a bloodless bureaucrat rather than a leader."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How Can Both Candidates Be Desperate?

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn explains:

"Clinton is desperate because, without a signficant win in Pennsylvania, any tiny chance of taking the nomination would vanish altogether. But Obama is desperate, too, because if Clinton does win significantly, then she'll be able to continue her campaign, at least through the Indiana and North Carolina contests.

He'll remain the presumptive nominee, of course; the delegate math will look pretty much the same no matter what the result on Tuesday. But if Clinton stays in the race, it means more time spent fighting with Clinton rather than John McCain. It may also mean more persistent questioning about Obama's ability (or relative lack thereof) to win over working class whites."

LEST WE FORGET: Financial Analysts Offer To Talk About Recession For $5

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- With the nation almost certainly headed toward a recession, a coalition of top financial analysts announced Monday that they would be willing to discuss the economic future of the U.S. at any time for a negotiable fee of $5. 'There are many complicated factors that will dictate the direction the economy will take in the coming months,' said commodity trading adviser Lucas Brockton, who repeatedly urged reporters at the press conference to leave any empty soda cans with him before they left. 'We are more than happy to talk about these factors at length just as soon as we can get a wink from Mr. Lincoln, if you catch my drift.' As of press time, the analysts were considering an offer of $3.50 and half a turkey sandwich."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

April 18, 2008

4/18: More Debate Fallout

The backlash to the ABC News debate in the liberal blogosphere continues as bloggers excoriate George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson for their performances as moderators. The netroots are particularly angry with Stephanopoulos for asking Obama a question about Bill Ayers that conservative talk show host Sean Hannity had urged him to ask the day before (although Stephanopoulos denies being spoon-fed the question from Hannity). Meanwhile, MoveOn.org is circulating a petition protesting the debate's focus on "trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas'", while a group of liberal bloggers and journalists have written an open letter to ABC "deplor[ing] the conduct" of Stephanopoulos and Gibson.

Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are defending the ABC debate and are accusing Barack Obama's online supporters of being thin-skinned. They are also buzzing about Obama's relationship with Ayers, whom they are adding to their list of shady figures that Erick Erickson calls "Obama's terrorist and communist fan club" (other figures include Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef). It is clear that righty bloggers intend to maintain a steady drumbeat about Obama's more controversial associates and admirers in an effort to make voters uncomfortable about his candidacy.

DEM FIELD: Feel The Backlash, ABC!

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Stephanopoulos and Gibson -- and the mainstream media more generally -- for last night's debate:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths. [...] ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "[This] was probably the worst performance by 'moderators' in a presidential debate. Ever. It really was that bad, and we cannot let that happen again where Democratic positions are under relentless attack by the moderators without a Republican candidate on stage. It wasn't a debate, it was an interrogation."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Last night was a perfect microcosm of how our political process works. The Right creates stupid, petty personality-based attacks to ensure that our elections aren't decided on issues (where they have a decisive disadvantage). Media stars -- some due to sloth, some due to ideology, some due to an eagerness to please the Right and convince them how Good and Fair they are -- eat up the shallow trash they're fed and then spew it out relentlessly, ensuring that our political discourse is overwhelmed by it, our elections dictated by it."
• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "Whew! What a miserable night for Citizen Charles and Citizen George. These are not dumb fellows, and they didn't fail to prepare for the debate. Obviously, they worked hard to develop such intensively emotional, biased, hostile questions, and they were very focused on avoiding the important issues that will shape the future of the republic for the next generation."
• Atrios: "There are genuine nonpersonality differences between these candidates which moderators who had any idea what they were talking about could have elicited. But when Charlie Gibson is a Laffer loving wingnut whose heart bleeds for the capital gains earnings of $200,000+ earners, and Snuffleupagus is a Sean Hannity sock puppet, that's not the debate we're going to get."

DEM FIELD II: Hannity's Providing The Questions At A Dem Debate?

Liberal bloggers continue to decry the fact that Stephanopoulos asked Obama a question about Ayers that conservative radio host Sean Hannity urged him to ask. As Think Progress' Faiz Shakir reports:

"[Tuesday] night's ABC News Democratic presidential candidates debate was co-moderated by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, but the unseen influence of Fox News' Sean Hannity was also on stage. Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama's connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this. [...] In the debate last night, Stephanopoulos asked a question that mirrored almost word-for-word what Hannity pressed him to ask."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Well, we just went from the worst debate ever to, I think, a full-fledged PR disaster for ABC generally, and for Stephanopoulos personally. I mean, conspiring with Sean Hannity on the best way to do an 'I gotcha' on Obama, and then doing exactly what he told you to do?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "When Hannity is feeding Stephanopoulos ideas for debate questions, you know there's a problem."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Stephanopoulos received his debate coaching from none other than Sean Hannity -- not exactly who you turn to for advice on honestly assessing a candidates' beliefs."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Bad enough that the questions were trivial -- even more notable was that it seemed as though they had been concocted by right-wing talk-show hosts, since they all were built out of right-wing talking points. And well, whaddya know? [...] There's no small irony in Sean Hannity demanding to know about Obama's supposed unsavory connections to people who once were radical terrorists. Sean Hannity, the onetime friend of Hal Turner. Turner, you'll recall, has made something of an ugly name for himself in recent years with his frequent calls for the assassination of various figures, including judges overseeing the cases of white supremacists and various members of Congress."

DEM FIELD III: Boy, George...

Stephanopoulos "denied he'd been spoon-fed the question by Fox News host Sean Hannity": "We have been researching this for a while. Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it's being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election."

Aravosis slams Stephanopoulos' response:

"[So] the Stephanopoulos standard for questioning a candidate is what issues the bad guys will raise against that candidate in the fall. (Though, using this standard, it's odd that Stephanopoulos didn't ask Hillary anything about Monica Lewinsky last night...). Okay, I'm game. [John] McCain is going on Stephanopoulos' show this Sunday, so I'm hoping Stephanopoulos will be pushing McCain hard on the following issues [...]:

1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain's second wife. America deserves answers.

2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?

3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. [...]

4. Old age. John McCain is old, everyone knows it. [...He] would be the oldest new president EVER if he gets elected (and we all saw what happened to [Ronald] Reagan in his second term). I hope we'll be seeing some hard hitting questions about McCain being simply too old. [...]"

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman criticizes the Ayers question: "It is patently absurd to believe that Barack Obama or any candidate for President in either party has political allegiance to 1960s group of domestic terrorists. But the truth in this situation did count for much, unfortunately. Stephanopoulos' question was the type of media stink bomb that fouls a candidate in the asking. Obama's answer, no matter how quick or good, could not have changed the outcome."

DEM FIELD IV: Take A Chill Pill, Netroots

Conservative bloggers are mocking their liberal counterparts for reacting so strongly to the ABC debate:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "To appreciate the dishonesty of [the liberal blogosphere's] reaction, ask yourself this: If Gibson and Stephanopoulos had spent the first 45 minutes raking Hillary over the coals about Tuzla, Whitewater, Monicagate, and whatever else they could scrounge, would there be similarly high dudgeon about the dearth of 'real' issues broached? Of course not. There'd be a few 'gee, rough night for Hillary' reactions, a few 'good, maybe this will convince her to get out' responses, the obligatory uproar from Jeralyn Merritt, Taylor Marsh, and the rest of the left's dwindling pro-[Hillary] Clinton wing, and that'd be that. It's entirely a means-ends analysis. ABC hurt the Savior, which is, and can only be, unfair."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Have some pride, people. Republicans stand up to this beating and worse every single day of the election cycle. The fact that Obama can't, and his own supporters know it well enough to shame themselves with this ridiculous display aimed at icing future debate moderators, is a pleasing thought indeed for Republicans."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The louder Obama's fans whine, the more obvious it is that their candidate bombed and that tough questions are Obama's kryptonite. It would be best for the Obama supporters to say it doesn't matter, they're all only words, words, words. Oh, wait: maybe not..."
• Michelle Malkin: "The left-wing anti-patriots at MoveOn.org, who didn't think twice about handing jihadists potent ammunition the day before the sixth anniversary of 9/11 with their despicable attack on Gen. [David] Petraeus, are now worried about actions that 'hurt the country.' Dangerous, perilous, damaging, harmful actions…like having a Democrat debate moderated by journalists who aren't complete and total sycophants."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Who would have thought that Gibson and Stephanopoulos would serve as the unwitting mouthpieces of the unsophisticated, 'small town'-type folk like me -- who actually care about what our prospective presidents think about the people they hope to lead and about the religious leaders they follow, on the one hand, or about their ability to give an honest accounting of their lives and experiences, on the other? Who knew that representatives of the MSM might finally catch on that, for the 'bitter' people in America, these issues are more than just 'distractions,' and that character counts?"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Look, I don't think that this was the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It could have been better. But it was not the forensic train wreck that some are making it out to be. The Obama people ado not appear to have liked how the debate went. This is no surprise; Obama did poorly in last night's debate. At the same time, they should not be surprised that Obama was a target of a lot of the questions last night. This is what comes with being the front runner, after all."

CLINTON: Don't Come Around Here No More, Hillary

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Clinton for her attacks on Obama during the ABC News debate:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Clinton has chosen her side, and it's of the corporatist status quo. That's no surprise. There's a reason she's in the leadership of the DLC. She may think that economically distressed Americans are 'optimistic' and 'resilient' and oh-so freakin' happy to lose their jobs and face few economic opportunities. All she's had to do is throw in a nice dose of San Francisco bashing (you know, the place where those gays live!), and her message is now indistinguishable from John McCain or Sean Hannity."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "The most disappointing aspect to this [George W.] Bush Republican script is that Senator Clinton is pandering to it, and her recent performances are almost as transparently bad as the George & Charlie Puppet Theater [Wednesday] night. [...] For Senator Clinton, it's about winning no matter what. She has abandoned her integrity in favor of Republican tactics. I fail to see anything which is admirable or redeeming when Senator Clinton invokes 'San Francisco' (which is Republican code for 'gay'); or when she implies that Senator Obama isn't ready to protect us from the evildoers; or when she chugs a shot and beer in plain view of an entire nation of impressionable teen girls."
• Aravosis: "ABC, with Hillary's help, has now made yet another right-wing talking point a legitimate point of public debate about Obama. If this keeps up, every Swift Boat style attack against Obama will be considered a serious issue by the media, all because Hillary made it so. [...] Hillary isn't going to win, [Howard] Dean knows it, we all know it. The only question is whether she's going to take all of us down with her."

Meanwhile, DHinMI repeats his call for Clinton to leave the race: "The voters have demonstrated a clear preference for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. She cannot overcome his lead. Hillary Clinton acknowledges that Barack Obama can beat John McCain. Thus, she's lost, and she has no argument that it's a threat to Democrats to have Barack Obama as our nominee. Therefore, there's no reason for Hillary Clinton to continue her campaign."

CLINTON II: Spare Us The Fake Outrage, Obamafans!

Pro-Clinton bloggers are angrily denouncing a post by Obama supporter Moulitsas in which he approvingly quoted the following comment (written by Daily Kos commenter Theran):

"At some point the concept of 'Republicans will do X' has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more."

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld -- they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill [Clinton] and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Clinton is no longer considered a Democrat by many Obama supporters because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama. The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle."
• Armstrong elaborates: "This notion that Clinton, or her campaign, meets the criteria of Republicanism, in its battle against Obama, is by far the worst development of the nomination battle. [...] I get calling someone a DINO because they vote Republican, or tear down the Democratic brand, but that's hardly the case with the two centrist-voting Democrats we have left that are both partisans...You don't call another Democratic candidate a Republican just of the campaign tactics they are using. [...] Look, if Obama can win by taking the high road, more power to him, but if Clinton wins by taking the hard road, then more power to her. But be honest, Obama would use whatever technique it takes to win this nomination, so would Clinton. Please spare us the fake outrage over party credentials. Its a loser."

CLINTON III: I'm Talking About Drawing A Line In The Sand, Dude. Across This Line, You DO NOT...

Obama's online supporters are responding to Armstrong's and Big Tent Democrat's arguments:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I wouldn't use the words of a Daily Kos commenter Markos points to, namely that the commenter no longer considers Hillary Clinton a Democrat as a result of her use of right wing driven attacks against Barack Obama. What I would say, however, is this: Clinton is not beyond reproach. [...] No one faults Clinton for running a strenuous campaign for the nomination. However, there are lines in politics. And when a race gets to the point where one candidate is much more likely to secure the nomination than the other (I'm talking greater than 3:1), the candidate less likely to win the nomination must begin to seriously think about the type of campaign that he or she is willing to wage and, moreover, if that campaign will hurt the party in the long run."
• BooMan: "I agree that it's kind of stupid to not consider Hillary Clinton a Democrat anymore. [...She] is still safely on Democratic ground when it comes to policy. Where she is starting to resemble a Republican is in her campaign rhetoric and tactics, and her indifference to what most of us 'Obamaphiles' like to call 'The Math'. [...] She's saying that the guy that has about a 98% chance of being our standard bearer in the fall is less qualified to be president than John McCain, and suggesting that he should quit his church, and linking him to [Louis] Farrakhan and the Weathermen and Hamas. [...] These are slimy, dishonest, right-wing attacks."
• BooMan continues: "There is a major element both within the Clinton campaign and within the Hill-o-sphere of a 'we're here to save you from yourselves mentality'. It's an article of faith that Obama cannot withstand these arbitrary and unfair attacks on his character so the Clintons are duty bound to use these arbitrary and unfair attacks as a kind of preemptive measure. Sorry, but even if that were true, the time to make that case was before Obama built an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegates. Right now, good Democrats should seriously consider spending their time defending Obama from these attacks, especially if they think they are so potentially lethal. And that's where some Democrats are beginning to look at some Clinton supporters with a jaundiced eye. What exactly explains your continued support for your candidate under these circumstances? Farrakhan? Hamas? You are a willing participant in this?"

OBAMA: Shady Characters...

Many conservative bloggers are discussing Obama's links with Ayers:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "We have at least a political friendship that began in 1995, and they became professional colleagues in 1999. More details will certainly emerge if the MSM decides that the Democratic front-runner's association with a terrorist matters to voters. [...] When will the MSM get around to a sustained examination of Obama's ideological history? Thus far the farthest left major party candidate in American political history has received the least scrutiny of any modern near nominee of a major party."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "These terrorists are, to quote a release from the Obama campaign 'respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago.' Excuse me, but WTF? Why is Obama defending this? [...] And the Democrats wonder why people care about these 'symbolic issues'?"

Many bloggers think Obama's past associations with people like Ayers and Wright make him unfit to be President:

• RedState's Erickson: "We have well documented Barack Obama's Marxist underpinnings. His wife, his preacher, his mother, his father, his childhood mentor, and his neighbor Bill Ayers all have underlying beliefs in marxism. They share a disdain for capitalism, capital, and job providers. They are all swept up in the call for social change. And Obama has been right there with them. [...] Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife are often played down by the Obama campaign, but they are only disputed by Obama's chief strategist. In fact, Obama's present successful political career was started in Bill Ayers's living room."
• Erickson continues: "At some point we should be concerned that so many enemies of this country, enemies who are proud to be enemies of this country, and enemies of liberty are supporting a man like Barack Obama. Why do they support him? What do they see in Barack Obama? All I can think of is they see an inexperienced politician who has already been raised in their marxist world view who has already signaled his intentions to surrender America abroad and defeat individualistic American independence at home. That would be the only way to rid this nation of what Obama's wife views as its 'mean spirited' nature. But are we ready to elect a man our enemies see as a man with a strong propensity to actively *strive* to take us out of first place?"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "What is it about Obama that attracts Hamas, Communists, and domestic terrorists? [...] Is it that they think he's amenable to their agenda? Or do they just see him as 'green' and inexperienced and malleable? The question is: Do Americans want someone who -- at best -- is obviously viewed as so naive and easily influenced running the show, really?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "These aren't just 'associations'; these are associates in every sense of the word. As the candidate who wants to criticize the strings attached to his opponents through years in the Beltway, he had better expect the same kind of scrutiny for his connections during years in the hard-Left movement in Chicago. And for a man who asks us to trust his judgment without having established any kind of track record, it's almost laughable that he finds our questions about his judgment in selecting his political associates out of bounds."

OBAMA II: You Gotta Get...That...Dirt Off Your Shoulder

Jay-Z fans in the liberal blogosphere were delighted by Obama's response to the ABC debate. As The Nation's Ari Melber explains:

"Barack Obama is clearly taking that abysmal ABC News debate in stride. He told his supporters not to fret about all the 'textbook Washington' drama on Thursday, recounting the superficial moderators and Hillary Clinton's attempts to 'twist the knife' on trivial issues. Then Obama made pop cultural history, miming the rapper Jay-Z's iconic hand signal to 'brush the dirt' off his shoulders. That popular youth gesture grew out of 'Dirt Off Your Shoulder,' a hit song in 2003. As Wikipedia explains, it refers to 'getting enemies off your chest by brushing your shoulders off.'"

• Think Progress' Spencer Ackerman links to the video of Obama's response and writes: "Starting at 2:20, bear witness to perhaps the coolest subliminal cultural reference in the history of American politics. Brooklyn, stand up!"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "This business is pretty cool. Somewhere between a dog whistle to the kids and a reverse Sister Souljah."
• Radar's Neel Shah: "Obama still feelin' like a pimp, goes and brushes shoulders off. [...This is] almost enough to help him regain the street cred he lost after trying to bust a move on Ellen."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Left-Wing Noise Machine

NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro are impressed by the liberal blogosphere's forceful response to the ABC debate:

"Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday's debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt. And as the Politico's Ben Smith pointed out yesterday, it's also what the GOP would face in the general election, especially if Obama is nominee. The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don't forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice."

LEST WE FORGET: Putin Likes All Russian Women

Russian President Vladimir Putin denied rumors that he plans to marry "a former Olympic gymnast less than half his age":

"'There is not a single word of truth' to the report, Putin said. [...] 'In other publications of the same type, the names of other successful, beautiful young women from Russia are mentioned,' he said. 'I think it won't be unexpected if I say that I like them all -- just as I like all Russian women.'"

Radar's Alex Balk:

"Pausing to reflect for a moment, Putin then added, 'Kazan girls really knock me out. They leave the West behind. And Moscow girls make me sing and shout. That Izhevsk's always on my mind.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:40 PM

April 17, 2008

4/17: Worst. Debate. Ever?

Remember when righty bloggers were overwhelmingly appalled by the 12/07 Des Moines Register GOP debate? Well, that was nothing compared to the netroots' reaction to last night's ABC News debate, which is being described as the "worst debate ever," an "unmitigated travesty," and "an abomination." Liberal bloggers are furious that moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused on "partisan gotchas and frivolous points" and didn't ask a single issue-based question for the first 50 minutes. They also believe that many of the questions had a right-wing slant and were biased against Barack Obama. In fact, many bloggers are pointing out that at least one of Stephanopolous' questions did apparently originate in conservative talk radio. Bloggers are voicing their displeasure by urging their readers to call ABC News and complain. As of press time, over 14,000 comments -- most of them negative -- have been posted to the ABC News comments site.

Conservative bloggers, in contrast, were pleased by Gibson's and Stephanopolous' questions. While they think that Hillary Clinton came off looking better than Obama, most of them are convinced that John McCain was the real winner of the debate. The netroots agree with the latter point, which is why the criticism of Clinton in the liberal blogosphere is growing louder and louder.

DEM DEBATE: And We've Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers overwhelmingly thought this debate was the worst of the cycle:

• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Worst. Debate. Ever."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This debate was [an] unmitigated travesty."
• Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell: "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "[This debate] wasn't just awful on its face, it was hard not to watch wondering if moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity. It marked a new low for the media freak-show. I was conflicted emotionally between anger at ABC for this travesty and pity for the network for having sunk so low."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "That was really, really horrible. Charlie Gibson and Mr. Snuffalupagus fed Clinton and Obama nothing but gotcha questions. Torture never came up, China never came up, unchecked executive power never came up, and it was 50+ minutes in before they asked any questions that could be considered remotely substantive or issues-based."
• Daily Kos' smintheus: "Let's tote up the colossal, the major, and also the very, very big issues that ABC's Gibson and Stephanopoulos have not deigned to bring up: Health care; the recession; Afghanistan; the mortgage crisis; deregulation; veterans' care; torture; restoring America's image abroad; the surveillance state; the environment. The Constitution."

Conservative blogger Jonah Goldberg predicted the netroots' angry reaction to the debate: "I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a 'fighting Dem' who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the 'real issues,' I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying."

DEM DEBATE II: Who Wrote The Questions -- Sean Hannity?!

Liberal bloggers are furious about Gibson's and Stephanopolus's debate questions, which they perceived as having an obvious right-wing slant:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "The questioning in tonight's debate -- mostly straight out of 1988 -- was an abomination. Gun control. 60's radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action. I'll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton and Piss Christ."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was a prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn't wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can't win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn't trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate."
• Marshall: "Not only were most of the questions on partisan gotchas and frivolous points. But more importantly the questions upon which the candidates were pressed the most were ones that presumed the correctness of Republican agenda items, sometimes explicitly so -- on taxes, capital gains taxes, gun rights, Iraq, etc. [...] If they'd wanted Hannity to moderate, I'm sure he would have made himself available."
• Atrios: "Aside from the lack of policy questions, so far this 'debate' has been played entirely on wingnut ground. If [Bill O'Reilly] and Sean Hannity hosted it the questions would've been the same. In a general election debate it would make sense to get questions from the right like that, but in a democratic primary it's just f*cking stupid."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "I missed Tim Russert -- that's how bad last night's 'Michelle Malkin/Steve Doocy' driven non-policy based debate turned out."

DEM DEBATE III: ...Actually, Yes, Hannity Did Write One Of The Questions

As Linkins reports, Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio show on Tuesday and started "taking notes" while Hannity dictated questions that he wanted Stephanopoulos to ask Obama. Democratic Underground's Emit was one of the first bloggers to report this:

"George Stephanopoulos was just on the Sean Hannity Radio show getting all chummy with Hannity. [...] Hannity asked George what kinds of questions they'll be asking at the debate tomorrow and they discussed a few things. When Hannity asked about the first question below about Ayers and whether George had plans to ask such a question, George replied, 'Well, I'm taking notes now Sean.' It did actually sound like he was pausing to take notes. And Hannity continued to feed him more:

1) Ask Obama about his relationship with [Bill] Ayers and WeatherUnderground and [David] Axelrod's comments, 'They're friendly'

2) Ask Obama why he attended the Million Man March"

NRO's Mark Hemingway passes along an email from a reader that seems to confirm this discussion between Hannity and Stephanopoulos: "You can thank Sean Hannity for that question. Steph was on his show yesterday and Sean really hammered the point that no one in the media had asked Obama about Ayers. Stephy said he was writing down all the info Sean gave him."

NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard reports that Stephanopoulos was also interviewed on Tuesday by WOR Radio's Steve Malzberg, who also suggested that Stephanopoulos ask Obama about Ayers (audio here). Stephanopoulos replied, "It's a damn good question."

Naturally, Obama's online supporters are furious that Stephanopoulos -- who, as many have pointed out, is a former Clinton aide -- was repeating questions given to him by right-wing radio hosts:

• Oliver Willis: "So ABC's debate moderator -- Stephanopoulos -- goes on Sean Hannity's radio show, and Hannity essentially hands him opposition research and the ABC 'journalist' just repeats it in the course of a presidential debate. Yeah, the media's liberal."
• Daily Kos diarist Billary Redux: "[On Tuesday], George was documented conspiring with TWO Right Wing Blowhards against Obama. [...] If this is his standard, why not let [Dick] Cheney moderate the debate, or McCain even!"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The [debate] questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Stephanopoulos was coached by Hannity? Figures...A former Clinton staffer -- someone who owes his entire career to the Clintons -- asks her opponent questions devised by Sean Hannity."

DEM DEBATE IV: How Does It Feel Now, Obama?

Not every liberal blogger was outraged by the debate. Pro-Clinton bloggers felt that Obama finally received the tough questions from debate moderators that Clinton had been getting throughout the campaign:

• Taylor Marsh: "Obama hasn't had this type of questioning before. No doubt his supporters will be upset, while Clinton's supporters likely feel it was long overdue. The truth is that Gibson and Stephanopoulos asked questions that have been on people's minds, but nobody else in the media had the spine to bring up."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Some journalists are outraged over the the questions. Of course, the questions in this debate were no different than those in previous debates that lacked substance and seemed designed to put a candidate on the hot seat -- the difference was that this time (for once) it was Obama, not Hilary getting the heat."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The biggest joke of the night is to watch Keith Olbermann of NBC say this debate was some travesty, which it was, as if NBC did not run the most offensive, most ridiculous, most unfair debates ever held. There is no doubt that the ABC debate tonight was horrendous and extremely unfair to Obama. There is no doubt that NBC's debates were all worse. [...] Surprisingly, for the first time, it was Obama who got the bad treatment tonight. Really bad. But no worse than Clinton got in every NBC debate."

DEM DEBATE V: Now, Those Are My Kinds Of Questions!

Conservative bloggers thought the debate moderators did an excellent job:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Wow. Charlie Gibson notes that when the capital gains taxes were cut under both [Bill] Clinton and [George W.] Bush, revenues went up. These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Obama isn't the underdog anymore, and Charlie Gibson isn't rolling over for him a la SNL. Gibson and Stephanopoulos have, on behalf of their colleagues, responded to the ridicule with, as Hillary might say, massive retaliation. [...] If Obama can overcome his terrible performance tonight, then there's nothing that can stop him. Because after the blowback from the left tomorrow, no debate moderator will ever dare to go after him like this again. William Ayers? If the Factor had moderated the debate I don't think he would have gone there."
• Michelle Malkin: "The left-wing bloggers are in high dudgeon over the Democrat debate. [...] How dare the ABC moderators ask questions about topics that are, you know, topical? How dare they ask questions that -- gasp! -- conservatives are asking. How dare they explore questions of character, truthfulness, and judgment? [...] Don't you know you're supposed to ask the same, old, recycled softball questions in order to allow the candidates to recite the same, old, recycled answers about their health plans, their housing plans, their Iraq withdrawal plans?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Democrats, especially superdelegates, are right now trying to determine who is the best candidate to face John McCain. It makes perfect sense to give Democrats the opportunity to see how each candidate responds to the type of attacks they can expect in a general election. You could even argue that ABC was doing the Democrats a favor, by allowing them to better prepare for the type of questions they'll be asked."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The winners were clear: Hillary and ABC. As for the latter, they laced into Obama again and again, forcing him to answer uncomfortable questions and revealing that he had very little to say that might put to rest the concerns of many Democrats, let alone any independents and Republicans. By questioning the premise of a key portion of the Democrats' tax plan (i.e. raising the capital gains tax decreases revenue) they did a public service. So if this was an effort to correct the generally fawnish treatment by the MSM of Obama they succeeded."

DEM DEBATE VI: The Real Winner? McCain, Baby!

Conservative bloggers thought that Obama had a worse performance than Clinton, but that McCain was the real winner:

• Morrissey: "The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they're speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight."
• Hemingway: "And the winner is...McCain by a landslide! [...] My prediction? The debate will be received so badly there will be increased pressure to kick Hillary out of the race. But since Obama was clearly the worse of the two in the debate, Hillary will win PA as expected and the goat rodeo will continue for the forseeable future with even more acrimony between the two candidates. Which only helps McCain."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Hillary wasn't on her best game tonight, but she did successfully manage to stick the shiv in Barack's back (figuratively speaking) several times -- without seeming as nasty or aggressive as she might have. Not that it will matter, probably...she did less to win herself any votes than she did to see that Barack loses them. If I were part of John McCain's team, I'd be clinking a champagne glass with somebody tonight.
• Rubin: "This [debate] only seems to confirm Hillary Clinton's argument that Obama is unprepared to take the scrutiny which will come with the nomination. The more they holler 'Foul!' the more Clinton will say 'Told 'ya so.'"
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "If there's even a marginal impact I have to think it's bad for Obama. He got tough questions for a change, muddled through his answers, and generally got his clock cleaned."

Philip Klein disagrees with the conservative consensus that Clinton had a good night: "Barack Obama undoubtedly had a bad performance in last night's debate, but I've been surprised to read how many people thought Hillary Clinton did well. [...] If some conservative commentators think she did well, it's only because several of the criticisms Clinton lobbed at Obama -- on [Jeremiah] Wright, on guns, on 'cling gate,' etc. came from a conservative perspective. It's kind of like in the wake of the YouTube debate last year in which pundits on the right praised Clinton for attacking Obama as being naïve for wanting to meet with foreign dictators. (Clinton was being the grown up, Obama wasn't ready for primetime.) But to liberals, Obama's stand reinforced the fact that he was the candidate who represented a true break with the Bush foreign policy. Obama may have been pummeled last night, but there's a lot of liberal rage against ABC, and Clinton will be seen as a collaborator who spent the night doing John McCain's dirty work. That may earn her kudos among conservative bloggers, but she needs the support of Democrats to win the nomination."

DEBATE CLINTON: I'm Just Showing You What The GOP Will Do

Liberal bloggers were disgusted by Clinton's conduct during the debate:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn't sink any lower, but thus far she's really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she's making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she's the one doing it now."
• Marshall: "Hillary: The Republicans are so bad that I have to become one to save the Democratic party."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It's like she's determined to show that however low the moderators go, she'll beat them out."
• Sudbay: "For Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. [...] She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason -- just to say it. Give me a break."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Gibson and Stephanopoulos spent more than half of their time playing 'gotcha' on subjects that only the idiot pundit class obsess over. But Gibson and Stephanopoulos weren't the only two participants playing the game, because Hillary Clinton was right down in the mud with them."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Geraghty praises Clinton's performance: "I don't like Hillary Clinton. But I respect her as an adversary. And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to 'go there' in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I'm tempted to say, 'I like the cut of your jib, Senator.' [...] Tonight, she had her stumbles. [...] But she tore into Obama on all of his weak spots. Relentlessly. For the most part, she avoided looking nasty while she did it. [...] After about forty-five minutes, David Axelrod probably should have thrown in the towel and stopped the fight."

DEM FIELD: The Electability Debate...Part 12,583,457

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to compare Obama's electability argument with Clinton's:

• Big Tent Democrat: "It so happens that I think, because of his Media Darling status, Obama remains the more electable candidate. I think he can expand the electoral map in the West especially. But I am not foolish enough to deny what should be obvious to any person able to view this contest objectively -- Obama is a much bigger risk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. [...] That is not to say Obama can not win in Ohio and Pennsylvania (he can't in Florida [in my opinion]), but rather it is to say that Clinton would be more likely to win in those states (just as Obama is more likely to win in Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, etc.)."
• Marshall agrees that Clinton is stronger in FL: "In general, Sen. Clinton's claims to be the stronger general election candidate are belied by most available evidence -- polling, favorability ratings, quality of the campaign each candidate has run so far, etc. The one exception is Florida. And Florida's no small exception. You can see a list here of all the polls of Florida. And Sen. Clinton consistently does better than Sen. Obama against Sen. McCain."
• Marshall goes on to make the same point that Yglesias made yesterday: "One related point is that I believe both Clinton's and Obama's number vis a vis McCain are depressed by their bashing each other and McCain's waltzing around with no one attacking him. A lot of Dems are fretting at the moment. And I'll admit to a touch of fretting myself. In fact, Florida is a major fret for me. But one also has to keep this point squarely in mind. McCain is now in his ideal environment. He's getting a bump from securing the nomination. And he has essentially no opponent. No one is attacking and thus there are no attacks for the media to churn through. Meanwhile, both Democrats are getting hit right and left. And attacks on each are the media's regular diet. And with all this, both Dems appear to be running essentially even with McCain. That's not a good sign for McCain."

OBAMA: Winning The Coveted Hamas Endorsement

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about comments made by Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef about Obama:

"'We don't mind -- actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,' Yousef said in response to a question about the group's willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates."

• Philip Klein: "It's pretty clear what's going on here. Hamas wants an American president who they can manipulate, Arafat-style, into believing they seek peace, while they continue a campaign of terrorism and hang on to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. They know they have an easy mark in Obama."


• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Yousef said, 'We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election.' Why? 'He has a vision to change America.' Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to 'change.'"


• CBN's David Brody: "Obama does have some ties to the pro-Palestinian crowd. I think it's fair to say that the vetting of Obama is in full force. More to come I'm sure. Can he withstand it?"

CLINTON: All Negative, All The Time

Liberal bloggers are discussing TPM's Greg Sargent's report that "[Clinton's] TV ad campaign is now 100% negative in most Pennsylvania markets":

• TPM's David Kurtz: "Just to give you an idea of how much of an opening the Hillary camp sees Obama's bitter gaffe giving her in Pennsylvania, her 'small town' ad is the only spot she has running in most of the TV markets in the state."
• Sudbay: "This should make all the Clinton staffers, consultants and supporters very, very proud. They can't win the nomination, but they are willing to participate in the effort to destroy the Democratic nominee. Thirty-five years of public service and experience, yet all she can come up with is an ad twisting Obama's remarks, which are remarkably similar to things her own husband said. Wow. It's not only destructive, it's sad and pathetic. And, again, it must make all those Clinton staffers so proud. So proud."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Modest Proposal

Yglesias:

"How is it that we can't have our Republican primary debates moderated by conservatives and our Democratic debates moderated by liberals? Doesn't it seem like a panel of progressives might have a better sense of what Democratic primary voters want to hear about? The Republican Presidential Debate with Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, the Democratic Presidential Debate with Harold Meyerson and Katrina vanden Heuvel -- something along those lines."

LEST WE FORGET: Chinese Class Clown Executed

From The Onion:

"BEIJING -- Known among schoolmates for his spirited antics and ability to make light of almost any situation, classroom jokester Wei Xiang, 11, was put to death by the Chinese government for drawing a mustache on an image of Education Minister Zhou Ji in one of his textbooks, sources reported Monday. 'An enemy of the state has been dealt with accordingly,' government spokesman Xu Qi said following Wei's execution by firing squad. 'Let this be a lesson to other children considering wising off or otherwise wasting valuable class time.' The fifth-grader previously served a six-month term in solitary confinement at Qincheng Prison after referring to the Tang Dynasty as 'the Stank Dynasty' during a history lesson in 2007."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

April 16, 2008

4/16: The More Things Change...

Lately, every day feels like Groundhog Day in the political blogosphere. Conservative bloggers continue to direct most of their fire at Barack Obama, portraying him as an out-of-touch elitist with radical views. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are simultaneously defending Obama against these attacks while going on offense against John McCain, portraying him as an unabashed hawk, an economic ignoramus, and a hypocrite on campaign finance reform. However, it's apparent that the anti-Obama narrative is getting far more play in the mainstream media. Chris Bowers thinks this will change once Hillary Clinton leaves the race, but it's far from clear when (and if) that will happen.

DEM FIELD: Kos Tells The Superdelegates What's Up

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas pushes back against the Clinton camp's electability arguments: "The Clinton concern trolls (see Bayh, Evan) are fond of telling us all the things the super delegates should consider when choosing between Clinton and Obama. For example, they're supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate because Obama's preacher said something craaaazy that one time. Then they're supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate because Obama quoted Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas -- even though the book was the darling of the progressive establishment in 2005 and no one accused Frank of being 'elitist' back then, those Clinton concern trolls quoting the book's themes approvingly (see Clinton, Bill)."

Moulitsas continues: "But that game looks like fun. Here, let me have a turn! Here's some things the supers should consider when making their decisions: (1.) When a Democrat has message discipline with the Republican nominee and the entire VRWC, perhaps there's some disconnect? Notice how McCain and Fox News didn't pile on Clinton after her Bosnia fantasies. The reason is obvious -- the VRWC doesn't want Obama to win. It's cute that Clinton and her former (and future) tormentors have all found temporary common ground against Obama, but let's not fool ourselves that this is anything more than a situational alliance. (2.) [...] Who do you think is more 'electable'? The candidate people like, or the candidate people don't like? (3.) Nationally, Obama is increasing his leads over Clinton. Perhaps it's because people really don't like to be told that they're 'optimistic' about being screwed over economically."

DEM FIELD II: Who's More Electable?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing John Judis' article in The New Republic, in which Judis argues that Obama is dangerously vulnerable in "the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri":

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat finds Judis' argument compelling: "Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos. This is why Hillary is more electable in PA, OH, FL and MI. The question is, as John Judis discusses, what does this mean about Obama's electability in November? The 'creative class' has never taken this argument seriously, even applauding such idiotic Obama moves like blocking revotes in FL and MI."
• Obsidian Wings' publius critiques Judis' argument: "I'm a bit underwhelmed by John Judis's argument that Obama will struggle with working class whites in industrial swing states. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think he focuses too narrowly on Obama. The fundamental problem is that any Democrat -- not just Obama -- will struggle with this group of voters in the general. [John] Kerry did, just like [Al] Gore before him. But what really bothers me is Judis's largely-unspoken implication that Clinton would do better on this front. It'd be different if the remaining choices were John Edwards versus Obama. But that's not the choice. And the idea that working class swing voters -- particularly men -- are going to flock to Clinton over Obama in the general doesn't strike me as very plausible. What does strike me as plausible is that Clinton would ultimately do about as well, except that it would be more than offset by an energized conservative base and a depressed liberal base."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks Judis is underestimating Obama's chances: "Elections are mostly determined by the fundamentals, and the fundamentals are against McCain. On top of that, Democrats have the more charismatic nominee. I look at national polling that shows Obama in a 45-45 tie with McCain, which is a very bad result for a de facto incumbent, and a terrible result for someone facing such a favorable campaign dynamic. We are, right now, at this very moment, witnessing the peak of McCain's electoral stock -- a time when Hillary Clinton is beating up Obama on a daily basis, and virtually no Americans have been exposed to the Democrats' anti-McCain messaging. Anything can happen, in principle, but if someone forced you to make an even odds bet on the outcome of this election, I don't think there can be any serious debate about what the smart play is."

CLINTON: By Any Means Necessary

Liberal bloggers continue to condemn Clinton's aggressive campaign tactics:

• Ezra Klein: "Whether you believe Hillary's chances of wresting the nomination are, as her advisers said a few weeks ago, 10 percent, or maybe, more optimistically, 30 percent, she's still got an uphill path to the nomination. Which makes the glee with which she's been drilling Obama on his 'bitter' comments a bit unsettling. Whether you're talking the ads in a general election swing state or the e-mails meant to convince the press corps that Obama is an 'elitist,' she's still running against the likely Democratic nominee, and beating the tar out of him in a way that's almost certain to linger beyond the primary. Obviously, if you assume her incentives are purely to maximize the chance that she wins the nomination, a full-out assault makes some sense (though it can also backfire). But if you think that her strategy for winning the nomination should, in theory, be balanced by her concern for the chances of the likely Democratic nominee in November, then this stuff could prove dangerous."
• The Huffington Post's Robert Creamer thinks Clinton's tactics will backfire: "I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee. Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are 'elitists' who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. [...] We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Clinton] won't win North Carolina, Indiana will be so close as to give marginal gains, and all she has is this last hope that she can knee-cap him and get it from the supers. Of course, she most likely won't succeed, and instead we will have a crippled Obama limping into the general against a united Republican party armed with a half year of Clinton video clips calling Obama elitist and out of touch and unelectable and stating she takes him at his word that he is not a stealth muslim. By the end of the week I fully expect her to be asking whether or not he is a Marxist."

Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is also disgusted by Clinton's tactics: "Answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain...but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two? [...] Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them."

OBAMA: Weathering The Storm?

Several liberal bloggers are looking at PA polls and national polls and concluding that Obama has survived the "Bittergate" controversy without suffering too much damage:

• Open Left's Bowers: "There are three new post 'bittergate' Pennsylvania polls this morning, from Rasmussen, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac. The three-poll average comes out to 51.3%--41.7%. The three previous, pre-'bittergate' polls from these same polling outfits produced an identical average of 51.3%--41.7%. Obama's remarks do not appear to have any impact on the campaign so far, except possibly to slow his upward momentum. However, even that possibility is hypothetical, since public opinion is not tied to the laws of physics. There is no gravitational force that indicates public opinion will continue to move in a given direction once it has started to move in that direction."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI goes even further: "Some have tried to spin the ['bitter'] flap as stopping Obama's momentum, but it's not clear there was any momentum prior to last Friday. PA has appeared stable for about 10 days or more."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "As Jonathan [Singer] asked yesterday: 'weren't Obama's comments supposed to hurt him?' While there is some evidence that they have at least for the moment in Pennsylvania, nationally there is absolutely no sign of any effect in Clinton's favor in the Democratic primary race. Quite the contrary. Following up on Obama's 10 point lead in yesterday's Gallup daily tracking poll, today's Rasmussen has Obama leaping to a 9 point lead 50-41, a 10-point flip toward Obama in 2 days. [...] Now, it should be noted that these are national numbers, so not necessarily reflective of the sentiment in the ten final upcoming contests where Hillary really is hoping to win over voters, but the national trends are instructive as to the general feeling among Democratic voters nationwide and it's clear she's simply been unable to rattle confidence in Obama."

TPM's Josh Marshall thinks the effect could be delayed: "[A TPM] reader notes that the Clinton camp's aim in pushing the 'bitter' stuff is not so much to stoke resentment which, if it actually exists, shows little sign of moving the numbers but rather to keep ginning it up in the rolling pundit conversation to create a negative drumbeat of news for Obama. That could well show up in the polls by next week or simply hold Obama in place and prevent him for making any more gains."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Sam Boyd is impressed by Obama's counterpunching skills: "Ben Smith points out that Obama has done a great job in this and other crises to fight back and make 'gaffes' less damaging than they might have been. This is something liberal writers have been clamoring for for years, but it's great to see it in action and I think Obama has gotten too little credit for it."

OBAMA II: ...Or Is He Doomed?

Many conservative bloggers, in contrast, seem to feel that Obama's comments have provided Clinton with a huge opening in the nomination race:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Three polls out in Pennsylvania show a Clinton lead ranging from six to fourteen points. (A noteworthy fact: the poll with the smallest lead includes several days of surveying before Snob-gate broke.) Clinton is also showing a bump in Indiana. This is a far cry from last week, when Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania seemed to be evaporating under Barack Obama's withering TV-ad assault and the fallout from her own repressed Bosnia memories. Pundits can question whether Obama's momentum had already slowed before he insulted the state. But a loss, especially a double-digit loss, has to be attributed in part to his blunder."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[Obama's] inexperience is showing. For a week he's been trying to change the message by talking about what he said. Big mistake. He's only perpetuating the story and the headlines. It makes for great press for everyone else. The humorous bit of this is that the press, who love Obama, now realize they have to drown him with ink -- like cutting off a leg to save a body. It's the only way now, they see, to save their party. They are going to have to sacrifice Obama for the Democrats to take the White House. Their hopes for change are gone. Obama has made himself no longer viable a contender for the elusive middle class independent voters who both sides need. Already on the decline in Pennsylvania, look for North Carolina to shift too. Hillary Clinton is smart to hang in there."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Barack Obama's statement about 'clinging to guns and religion' is causing real divisions and anxiety in Democratic ranks. [...] Every day this story goes on is another doubt in the minds of superdelegates."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "To win, Hillary has to do the unthinkable: She has to be brutally honest with the voters about just how unelectable Obama is. Does she have it in her?"

OBAMA III: Pass The Brie And Chablis, Please

Conservative bloggers continue to portray Obama as an out-of-touch elitist:

• Michelle Malkin: "The odor of elitism is like onion breath: It's quick to acquire, hard to mask. Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot camouflage the political stink he exhaled when he dissed small-town Americans as 'bitter' Neanderthals 'clinging' to their guns, faith and belief in strict immigration enforcement. It wasn't the first time the effete Snob-ama revealed himself. In Philadelphia, he passed up the hometown cheesesteak -- gloppy, artery clogging and blue-collar (yum!) -- for a nibble of Spanish-imported, $100/pound ham. In Iowa, he moaned to voters about the price of arugula at Whole Foods market. (Fun fact: There aren't any Whole Foods markets in Iowa.) And at an Altoona bowling alley, he couldn't even score his age. Superficial but telling glimpses of a condescending core."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The Obamas really are out-of-touch with the experiences of most of America. [...Michelle Obama] is clueless that an Ivy-League educated, $300,000 plus salaried lawyer in a $1.6 million house, cannot be a perpetual victim by virtue of her race. [...] Obama himself -- cf. 'typical white person', the Pennsylvania mess, and things like Wright and his church being 'not particularly controversial' -- likewise at 3-4-week intervals will say something that will be taken either as condescending or racialist. And in the aggregate these 'conflations' shown on evening news 'loops' and 'snippets' by August or so will cement the growing impression of uneasiness among the American people. Race has nothing to do with it; a certain smugness everything."
• Erickson: "More and more, all Obama is actually showing us is that his nose is turned up higher than the rest of us, and he actually thinks we are so dumb that he can get away with cynical little ploys. I think his 15 minutes are just about up."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama is [currently] talking about his humble roots to dispel the charge of elitism and snobbery. [...] But snobbery is less about income than it is about one's attitude towards other people -- most often expressed when one is among one's own (say, while drinking wine among San Francisco's elites)."

Other conservative bloggers are focusing on Obama's liberalism:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Obama was being perfectly authentic when he spoke his now famous words. Too bad authentic liberalism never wins elections."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Obama['s] politics were formed at Columbia University and Harvard Law in the 1980s, both of which are situated in the premier bastions of cosmopolitan liberalism and [Ronald] Reagan hatred. [...] Obama's vision of America is bleak and dismal [and] is really a product of the 1980s urban and academic left which refused to believe that Reagan was doing anything good for the country, and constantly spun scenarios of a bleak and broken America where the Gordon Gekkos screw the little guys. He's not a black JFK or RFK. And he's not a black Reagan ([though] his own self-comparison to Reagan was telling). He's a black Mario Cuomo. Soaring rhetoric. Majestic sophistry. Conventional liberalism."

OBAMA IV: Is That A Flag Pin On Your Collar, Senator?

Righty bloggers are mocking Obama for wearing a flag pin given to him by a disabled veteran, after the IL senator declined to wear a flag pin last year:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Apparently, the great communicator wasn't communicating his patriotism very well. Is it any wonder, given his disdain for the middle class?"
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "I suspect he'll wear it the rest of the way to November and attempt to take the patriotism card off the table. How convenient."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I lost track of this very stupid story after the initial dust-up last October. [...] Conservatives naturally were blamed for making an issue of this last fall but in fact Obama's the one who politicized it by investing the pin with such grandiose meaning that he simply had to stop wearing it in good conscience. No other prominent Democratic critic of the war that I can think of has felt the need to divest him- or herself of the sort of symbolism that those small town yokels whom Obama has such affection for seem to appreciate so much."

MCCAIN: Stepping Over Sanford

NRO's David Freddoso reports that McCain is unlikely to pick SC Gov Mark Sanford as his running mate: "[Sanford] is still perceived by some (perhaps by many conservatives) to be a strong candidate for John McCain's vice presidential slot. The only problem is, he is not viewed so kindly in McCain circles. If Mitt Romney is a very long longshot for the spot, Sanford may be even longer. [He] was a McCain backer in 2000...but his reluctance to endorse McCain in a timely fashion this year was a major issue. Sanford has not shown public signs of craving the position, either. McCain insiders say that the real question is not whether Sanford will be vice president, but whether he was ever under serious consideration."

This news does not sit well with AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "[Freddoso's report] chafes me no end. Basically, it says that McCain won't consider Mark Sanford for Veep because of hard feelings about Sanford not endorsing McCain in the primaries this time after having done so in 2000. If this is true, it shows incredibly pettiness, arrogance, and stupidity on the part of the McCainiacs, very much in line with the overblown code of loyalty that led both Bushes to value loyalty and even sycophancy above merit. Just because Sanford endorsed McCain in 2000, as a congressman, doesn't mean he is obligated to do so again as a governor in 2008. [...] Look: If Sanford would make a good vice president and a good vice presidential candidate, it shouldn't matter one bleeping bit who he endorsed."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Boss Speaketh

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle reacts to Bruce Springsteen's endorsement of Obama:

"At this point, Bruce's fan base probably clings more to arugula than guns (and I say this as member of that fan base), but it's interesting that the 'troubadour of the working class' felt compelled to come out for Obama now. Of course, this just raises the question: If there was a musician whose endorsement could offset bittergate and help Obama in small-town America, who would it be? Toby Keith? Alan Jackson? Bret Michaels?"

LEST WE FORGET: Starbury For LVP

ESPN's Bill Simmons gives his 2007-08 "Least Valuable Player" Award to the Knicks' Stephon Marbury:

"Even before the season, Marbury looked like the favorite for my annual LVP ('Least Valuable Player') Award thanks to some peculiar TV interviews, a prominent role in the sexual harrassment suit against the Knicks and the inspiration for at least 50,000 fantasy team names that somehow involved the words 'truck' and 'party.' Then the season started and he splintered the Knicks during a vicious argument with Isiah Thomas that included the reported threat, 'He thinks he can [bleep] me, but I'll [bleep] him first.' [...] He played 24 games and participated in a whopping six victories (considering he makes $20 million, that's more than $3.3 million per victory), then took an extended leave of absence after his father's death and nobody cared if he came back. And finally, he opted for season-ending ankle surgery when he easily could have waited until the summer. We've had nuclear leaks that were remembered more positively than Marbury's 2007-08 season."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

April 15, 2008

4/15: Siding With The Enemy?

Prominent lefty bloggers are criticizing Hillary Clinton for "reinforcing right-wing charges" against Barack Obama. Josh Marshall writes that Clinton's recent conduct "makes me want to cry," while Arianna Huffington complains, "John McCain should go on vacation, Hillary Clinton is doing his job for him." Clinton's decision to denounce Obama's remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians as "elitist and out of touch" marks the second time in the past month that she has attacked Obama with GOP-sounding rhetoric (the first time was when she declared that Obama, unlike McCain, had yet to cross the "Commander-in-Chief threshold"). In both instances, the netroots sharply criticized Clinton's conduct, which they perceived as harmful to the party's likely nominee (i.e., Obama).

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue their onslaught against Obama, decrying the IL senator's "elitism," "snobbishness," and "disdain for regular people". Clinton may be right about one thing: should Obama emerge as the Dem nominee, the GOP will almost certainly use many of the same attacks that they used against John Kerry. But will the attacks be as effective this time?

CLINTON: Whose Side Are You On, Hillary?

Liberal bloggers are slamming Clinton for reinforcing conservative attacks on Obama:

• Arianna Huffington: "John McCain should go on vacation, Hillary Clinton is doing his job for him. [...] Clinton's cynical distortion of Obama's remarks is in keeping with her campaign's modus operandi. On the foreign policy front, we've been fed a steady diet of her RNC-patented attacks: No Democrat can be trusted with national security -- except her. Obama hasn't crossed the threshold to be commander-in-chief. Etc. Now she's turned to the domestic policy section of the RNC playbook, twisting Obama's words in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "While I find the whole 'don't repeat right-wing frames' kind of tired if useful, Hillary Clinton's charges of elitism are explicitly reinforcing right-wing charges. How do we know this? Well, because right-wingers are attacking [Obama] with her rhetoric."
• TPM's Marshall: "With the [Jeremiah] Wright business and now with this, the more nuanced version of the Clinton line has been that what 'we' think is not really the point. It's what Republicans will do with it in the fall. And that's a real concern that I definitely have. I won't deny it. I've never thought Obama was a perfect candidate. But as we get deeper into the primary calendar, increasingly so, this 'what the Republicans will do' line has become more of a simulacrum, or a license, if you will, to do what Republicans actually do do. That is to say, to grab for political advantage by peddling stereotypes about Democrats and liberals that are really no less offensive than the ones we're talking about about Americans from small town and rural America."
• Marshall continues: "And seeing Hillary go on about how Obama has contempt for folks in small town America, how he's elitist, well...no, it's not because I think she's either. I never have. But after seeing her hit unfairly with just the same stuff for years, it just encapsulates the last three-plus months of her campaign which I can only describe as a furious descent into nonsense and self-parody. Part of it makes me want to cry. But at this point all I can really do is laugh."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's John Cole unloads on Clinton: "I am well aware that I am beyond the point where I can discuss Hillary rationally, but I really can not stress enough how much I have grown to hate her. [...] This past week-end was just the final boiling point for me, as I watched her run to every microphone with a zeal that would impress Chuck Schumer to claim that America's blue collar workers are under assault from a San Francisco effete liberal latte-sipping out-of-touch Obama. [...] This would merely be stupid and offensive if she actually believed that Obama doesn't like or looks down on average Americans, but she knows that isn't true. As it is, though, it is far more than offensive and stupid, as she just thinks she has an angle where she can score some political points. [...] The woman is a moral black hole -- soulless, empty, calculating and nasty all the way to her core."

CLINTON II: Doesn't She Want Gore's Endorsement?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing Clinton for suggesting that Obama, like former Dem nominees John Kerry and Al Gore, could be viewed as out of touch by religious voters:

"'The characterization of people in a way that really seemed to be elitist and out of touch is really something that we have to overcome,' [Clinton] said, turning to the Democratic Party's problem with religious voters in the past. [...]

'[Obama's comments] did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with -- someone goes to a closed door fundraiser in San Francisco and makes comments' that, she said, could be seen as 'patronizing.'

Clinton then repeated her suggestion that John Kerry and Al Gore had failed to be seen as respecting people of faith, said Obama is 'a good man and a man of faith.'

'We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004,' she said. 'Large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life.'"

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Clinton and her surrogates are obviously trying to insinuate that Obama can't win. Of course, Clinton can't win the nomination, and the only way she'll become the nominee is if Obama collapses because he's deemed by pretty much all Democrats as unelectable. So to do that, they're saying he'll lose, just like John Kerry and Al Gore (never mind that Gore actually won the election, and would probably have won by enough that the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the chance to overturn it had it not been for the residual 'Clinton fatigue'). Also, Hillary Clinton is the wife of an ex-president, with whom she's made $109 million in the last few years...I'm sure glad Hillary Clinton [is] around to tell us hoi polloi about elitism."


• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I think there could be an argument made that Al Gore and John Kerry didn't connect with voters, that they were out of touch. [...] But to the 51+ million Americans who voted for Gore in 2000 (more than had voted for any previous Democrat in history) and the 59+ million Americans who voted for Kerry in 2004 (again, more than had voted for any previous Democrat in history) -- the tens of millions of Americans who thought that both Gore and Kerry were very much in touch with them -- these comments could come off as at least a little condescending (in sort of the same manner that Obama's comments could come off as a little condescending). To narrow in a bit more, Gore and Kerry certainly spoke for me. They were in touch with the things that I, as an American and as a voter (at least in 2004), cared about. And I don't think I'm alone there."

CLINTON III: Pot, Meet Kettle

Several bloggers are noting that Bill Clinton made an argument similar to Obama's in his 2004 memoir, My Life:

"If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "With all the talk about Obama noting, correctly, that Americans are bitter about politics and their overall economic situation (and thus turning to divisive issues like guns), it's interesting to note how Bill Clinton has repeatedly said the same thing. Will the mainstream media hold Hillary as accountable as Obama for this kind of talk?"


• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "I do think Obama's words were poorly chosen, but I don't think they merit 'Bittergate' as we're seeing it play out. Especially since this sort of sentiment isn't unknown to the Clintons, either."

OBAMA: Classy, Congressman

Liberal bloggers are slamming Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) for referring to Obama as "that boy":

"Congressman Geoff Davis, took the criticisms of Mr. Obama a few steps further, likening the change slogan to the pitch of a 'snake oil salesman.' He then relayed to the audience that he had taken party in a 'highly classified, national security simulation' with Obama.

'I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button,' Mr. Davis said. 'He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.'"

• Aravosis: "You don't call a black man a 'boy' when you're from the south, unless you're intending to harken back to the racist language of slavery, and then segregation, when all black men were called 'boy' as a prejudiced pejorative."


• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Far-right efforts to define Barack Obama as The Other have been relatively subtle over the last couple of months. A little emphasis on Obama's middle name here, a little talk about flag lapel pins there. We know what was coming, but we could also tell the Republican efforts hadn't started in earnest. It appears conservatives are starting to forgo the subtleties."


• Singer: "If the Republicans believe that they can get away with playing a nod-nod, wink-wink game over the issue of Barack Obama's race in a general election, they are going to be sorely mistaken. The American people simply will not stand for a situation in which a candidate is attacked or called names on the basis of his color of skin, or even if an attempt is made to caricature a candidate's race as an attempt at a joke (calling him 'Tiger Woods' or the like). What's more, we the people will ensure that the worst offenders will not be allowed to act as such with impunity. This is not playing the race card; this is ensuring that we don't take ten steps back as we attempt to take one or two more steps forward in trying to make a more perfect union."


• DHinMI thinks Davis' words will push swing voters toward Obama: "Geoff Davis' outburst showed that there's still a lot of racism in America. But it also showed that a lot of it is concentrated within the Republican party and its electoral base. [...] Their racism will repeatedly ooze out of them, and the racism that has divided America for so long might finally be used against itself, and in what to the racists will seem a paradox, their racism will help elect Barack Obama."

Liberal bloggers were not satisfied by Davis' apology, in which he wrote a letter to Obama saying, "My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity":

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "As Marc Ambinder observes, Davis can't seem to apologize for what he actually did wrong. [...] Nobody impugned Obama's integrity here, the issue is that only racist white people refer to grown-up black men as 'boy.' Obama and Davis are both in their fourties so it's not even as if some much older member of congress engaged in the 'poor choice of words' here. Meanwhile, it's very difficult to infer anything about a person's motives or general sentiments from a single incident, but it's certainly not reassuring that Davis seems unwilling to grasp what the nature of the problem is here."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Davis never apologizes for what was most egregiously offensive about the remark -- that it referred to Obama the way an old Confederate slaveholder would refer to his holdings, the way old segregationists referred to civil-rights workers. It wasn't simply that it was offensive, it was that it was classic race-baiting."

OBAMA II: An Effete, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating Community Organizer

Conservative bloggers continue to accuse Obama of elitism:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "The distinct advantage Republicans have had for the last several election cycles over Democrats is that the presidential candidate fielded doesn't have to pretend to like normal, American people. While, yes, all presidential candidates are more affluent, sometimes more educated, and steeped in Washington perks and fancy dinners, Republicans are much more natural at expressing respect for life outside the Beltway and its traditions than Democrats. Hence, the contrast between Obama's and McCain's thoughts on small-town America."
• see-dubya: "Michelle [Malkin] had [Obama] pegged over a week ago...when he was nibbling fancy ham in an upscale Philly deli instead of chowing on a cheesesteak. Several commenters at the time scoffed that this was nothing deeply significant, and if it went no deeper than a preference for fancy food and a bit of a tin ear about how it was received, they would have been right. But Obama's words showed that that fundamental discomfort -- and even disdain -- for regular people that his menu had suggested was not just some little flub, but rather a product of a deeply-held belief. The elitism charge has legs."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Obama's politics, in my view, are fundamentally little removed from the typical attitude of 'I'm privileged and feel guilty about it, but because I'm smarter than you (and have a Harvard degree to prove it) I know everything about your pathetic little life and what is required to fix it.' It's not just snobby, it's nanny-statist...and it's not just conservatives or hardcore libertarians who hate that. Normal people -- moderates and independents -- hate that. That's a lot of why they hated [Michael] Dukakis (and only somewhat less) John Kerry."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle urges GOPers not to overestimate McCain's chances: "We're starting to see Barack Obama come down from the stratosphere and be defined as a standard liberal Democrat. Jeremiah Wright and the bitter Keystone Staters are the two incidents that have played the biggest role so far. While this is good for Republicans, there are two reasons for them to be cautious in their growing 2008 optimism: 1.) A pretty standard-issue liberal Democrat came within three points, and thousands of votes in Ohio, of beating an incumbent wartime president three years after 9/11 and during a period of economic growth; 2.) When the Democrats finally settle on a nominee, they will work at bringing John McCain down from the stratosphere and defining him as a standard George W. Bush Republican."

OBAMA III: A Clintonian Marxist, Or A Marxist Clintonian?

• RedState's Erick Erickson examines Obama's "Marxist underpinnings": "Consider who [Obama] surrounds himself with: Michelle Obamathinks this is a mean spirited nation that she's only just decided to be proud of. [...] Then of course there is Reverend Wright, his 'spiritual adviser' who loathes what this country represents. He preaches a black liberation theology born of marxist roots. There is also Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's self described childhood mentor. Davis was not only an open communist, but took Obama along to 'socialist conferences' as Obama describes them. And let's not forget Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers. [...] This is the man who tried to blow up the Capitol and Pentagon on his way toward his communist vision for America. When Obama says people take comfort in their faith when times are tough, I don't really think he was thinking of Pslam 46, 'God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.' [...] He was speaking of Karl Marx. And is it any wonder? The people he was surrounded himself with and grew up around all drank the kool-aid long ago."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin describes Obama as "Clintonian": "Obama's billing as the post-racial, post-partisan Agent of Change seems to have lost its punch somewhere between Reverend Wright's sermons and Obama's dishing the dirt on rural folk with the in-crowd in San Francisco. The problem with being all things to all people (liberation theology congregant to black Chicago, erudite sociologist to Bay Area liberals, and Great Uniter to the rest of the country) is that, in the age of new media, anyone can all put the pieces together and reach a fairly obvious conclusion: Obama is telling everyone a different story. [...] How old school. How -- dare I say it? -- Clintonian."

MCCAIN: So Sue Me

Liberal bloggers are pleased that the DNC has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to compell the FEC to investigate McCain's public financing issues:

• Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "Amazing. The DNC has to go to court to get McCain to abide by his word on public financing. The man who chalks up campaign finance reform as one of his accomplishments doesn't want it to apply to him."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "As we all know by now, John McCain applied for -- and was accepted into -- the public financing system for the primary. With that acceptance came certain requirements, one of those being that he can't spend more than $56,757,500 million during the primary. As of February 29, 2008 McCain has -- by his own admission -- exceeded that amount. The FEC Chairman David Mason says McCain can't leave the public financing system without permission of the FEC, but John McCain is thumbing his nose at that. [...] His commitment to campaign finance reform is a sham, and the DNC's actions go straight to the heart of exposing this deceit and hypocrisy. Let's see if the press picks it up."
• Benen: "Today's suit is about compelling the FEC to investigate McCain's transgression, except the FEC can't investigate because it doesn't have a functioning panel of members. The DNC, in turn, wants to go after McCain directly, since the FEC can't. This is pretty important, especially given McCain's rhetoric about Obama and the public-financing system. McCain, who used to present himself as something of a reformer, is the one flouting the rules and counting on a feckless FEC to get away with it."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "When John McCain filed his February FEC report on March 20, 2008, it became evident he had busted the FEC's public finance spending cap. Every dollar McCain spends is an illegal act."

MCCAIN II: Right Said Fred

The netroots are also blasting Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt for criticizing Obama's shift on public financing while not discussing McCain's FEC problems:

• Sudbay: "McCain opted in to the [public financing] system when he thought he'd get more money that way, then opted out (illegally) when he 'realized' he'd make more money on the outside, and now he may opt back in again because the public is refusing to give him the big bucks he expected. But Obama is the one who the Washington Post editorial board has a problem with. Right."
• Hamsher: "John McCain is already in the public financing system, and has exceeded the spending limits. Because the FEC has no quorum and no ability to enforce the law, McCain is just ignoring them. How stupid would Obama have to be to enter into an agreement to abide by regulations with someone who has already shown he has no intention of honoring them? And yet the media drumbeat continues apace."
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "Dog bites man. Sun rises in east. The WaPo's Fred Hiatt tries to cover for Republicans."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Arianna Huffington, Torn Between Two Worlds

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"How, exactly, can Arianna Huffington brag that Obama's description of what ails 'bitter' small town Pennsylvanians were 'broken here on HuffPost's OffTheBus' and then moments later attack Hillary for 'relentlessly using these comments for political gain'?

Isn't she basically arguing, 'Obama's comments are really big news...that are completely inappropriate for her to comment on!'

Nonetheless, when she and Jay Rosen announced OffTheBus, I was among the skeptics who expected nothing but relentless cheerleading for the Democratic candidate from the left. But by showcasing a comment that reinforces all kinds of negative memes about Obama, that batters him in small-town Pennsylvania, and that will make valuable fodder for McCain in the general election, I have to admit...nice job, Arianna."

LEST WE FORGET: Mass E-Mail Only Has 4 Recipients

From The Onion:

"TALLAHASSEE, FL -- A self-described mass e-mail containing the subject line 'URGENT: Please help!' was sent from Jerrod32@gmail.com to only four different in-boxes, the handful of recipients reported Wednesday. 'Dear friends, family, and everybody else,' the message, which did not use the bcc feature and was clearly sent to jjones@msu.edu, marissa_daly@gmail.com, skimpy831@hotmail.com, and marissa_daly@yahoo.com, read in part. 'Sorry for the mass e-mail, but this is important, and time is of the essence.' As of press time, none of those who received the e-mail had, as requested, Dugg the sender's comment on the 'Top 7 Most Annoying Video Game Enemies,' since they all immediately deleted the message."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:47 PM

April 14, 2008

4/14: A Bitter Taste In Their Mouths

This past weekend, the big topic in the political blogosphere was -- you guessed it -- Barack Obama's description of working-class Americans as "bitter." Conservative bloggers jumped all over Obama's comments, attacking the IL senator with a collective ferocity not seen since the early days of the Jeremiah Wright controversy. The anti-Obama narrative that is emerging on the right is clear. Conservative bloggers view Obama's recent comments -- along with his radical preacher, his unusual childhood, his opposition to wearing a flag pin, his liberal voting record, his wife's comments about feeling "proud" of this country only recently, etc. -- as evidence that Obama "doesn't understand" middle America.

Most liberal bloggers fiercely defended Obama's remarks, arguing that working-class people are bitter about their economic circumstances. Other bloggers complained that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are in no position to accuse their less wealthy Senate colleague of "elitism." Pro-Clinton bloggers, however, joined their conservative counterparts in criticizing Obama -- a phenomenon that we've noticed before.

Obama's online supporters are furious that Clinton is (in their view) reinforcing the traditional right-wing narrative about "elitist" liberals. Furthermore, since most liberal bloggers doubt this controversy will cause 80% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to endorse Clinton, they're convinced that Clinton is hurting the future Dem nominee with these attacks. Steve Benen summarizes the concerns of many liberal bloggers:

"This flap reinforces why a prolonged Democratic primary process is bad for the party. We now have two dominant forces -- the Republican machine and the Clinton machine -- simultaneously arguing, vehemently and loudly, that the likely Democratic nominee is an elitist, out-of-touch liberal who doesn't like working families and embraces un-American values. It's absurd, but that's exactly the message dominating the political landscape right now."

OBAMA: Enough With The Faux Outrage!

Liberal bloggers are fiercely defending Obama's comments, arguing that working-class people are bitter about their economic circumstances:

• Ezra Klein: "I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be (save that the media and Clinton and McCain are saying they will be a big deal, and thus making them a big deal). [...] As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton. It's that the way Obama phrased it is politically damaging."
• The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel: "Obama is right. People are angry. [...] Americans are fed up with government's failure to do anything much for them. [...] After all, Bill Clinton, long considered the master politician of his age, was basically in the business of lowering expectations of government even faster than they were disappointed. Obama is trying to amp up expectations which the Right and Clintonism have tamped down. The right wing is clearly desperate, ready to seize on anything to change the subject and hide how out of touch they are with an America in financial pain. But how cynical of the Clinton campaign to claim Obama was condescending to the people of Pennsylvania."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "I suspect Republicans [are] concerned about what Obama could do if he pursued the notion that the Republicans have conned Americans into voting against their interests, and then trashed the country. Anyone with Obama's political skills to educate voters on how this happened could also convince them they don't have to accept being the victims another four years. Labeling Obama 'elitist' and 'condescending' is thus essential, and if Republicans can get Clinton to do that for them, all the better."
• The Huffington Post's Jane Smiley: "Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them -- that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction. And this is what Senator Hillary Clinton says about it: 'Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.' [...] I cannot believe how angry this makes me."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "[Clinton] can't win, as is obvious to anyone who can figure out the delegate math, unless Obama drops out. So this is just another pathetic attempt at what the journalist Elizabeth Drew, writing about Clinton's tactics in this campaign, calls 'molehill politics'. [...] Molehill politics it is, trying to create a controversy where there is none, trying to distort Obama's statements, and trying to deny the truth in what he said in favor of pushing sunny nostrums about how people getting screwed by our economic system of the last 40 years are upbeat, optimistic and resilient."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is impressed by Obama's response to the controversy: "One thing I like about Barack Obama is that when he hands himself lemons, he tries to make lemonade as you see in his response to those who criticized his characterization of the public mood in Pennsylvania. [...] I have no idea whether this particular response to this particular controversy will 'work' but it's still the correct approach and one that shows, I think, a more sophisticated grasp of media dynamics than we've seen from most Democrats over the past few years."

OBAMA II: Don't Throw Stones If You Live In A Glass House

Liberal bloggers are also complaining that Clinton and McCain are in no position to accuse their less wealthy Senate colleague of elitism:

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "It's bizarre that the two candidates whose net worth far and away screams 'elite' are calling the guy worth about 2% of the value of their estates the 'elitist'. Not to mention, since when has a Yale alum been able to call a Harvard grad an elitist and get away with it?"
• The Nation's Ari Berman: "John McCain ditched his disabled first wife after Vietnam and married a rich beer heiress twenty years his junior. Bill and Hillary Clinton made $109 million over the last eight years and sold the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder when in the White House. And now both McCain and Clinton are deriding Barack Obama as 'elitist.' Give me a break. When Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart and McCain was getting reprimanded for his role in the Keating 5 scandal, Barack Obama was a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. You tell me which experience better prepares one to understand the struggles of working people."
• The Huffington Post's Robert Creamer: "It takes real chutzpah for a guy who owns eight houses (McCain) to call Barack Obama an 'elitist.' [...] This is the same Barack Obama who spent years of his life organizing out-of-work steelworkers on the south side of Chicago -- people just like those who live in Allentown or Erie or Pittsburgh or the Monongehela Valley in western Pennsylvania. He stood shoulder to shoulder with them, sat at their kitchen tables, spent hours in their church basements. He didn't do those things as a famous candidate, but as a community organizer being paid $8,000 a year by a coalition of churches."
• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "[Clinton is returning] to the Republican theme of painting a Democratic opponent as an 'elitist' and 'out of touch.' She harkens back to bring us tales of her grandfather working in a factory and how she lived amongst the people in Arkansas. Never mind that it has been nearly 20 years since she lived without a full security detail, let alone anywhere near 'the people' or Arkansas."

Meanwhile, Al Giordano thinks Clinton's attacks on Obama will backfire: "Enough already. The poor little $109 millionaire has the victim game so soaked into the brain that now she wants company. It's condescending to rural voters to tell them they should feel 'offended' by Obama's reported remarks. [...] Plenty of rural folks will agree with [Obama's] statement, and my guess is that very few will conclude that Obama was talking about or insulting them. Telling rural Pennsylvanians they should feel victimized by those words is telling them they should become as insufferable and over-sensitive as the urban and suburban PC 'offense junkies' that see themselves in, and are rallied by, Clinton's professional victimhood."

OBAMA III: Not Ready For Prime Time

While most liberal bloggers defended Obama's remarks, pro-Clinton bloggers did not:

• Taylor Marsh's wbboei: "In recent years, the Democratic Party has nominated a succession of elite intellectuals for the Presidency. Those elections were lost because Reagan Democrats voted against them. Barack Obama is merely the latest example of this mistake. [...] Sure as the earth turns, if he is the nominee they will vote against him. By contrast, Reagan Democrats see Hillary as one of their own -- despite her extraordinary intellect and fine education. [...] They share her goals and relate to her struggle on a very personal level. [...Dem party officials] must find a face saving way to move away from Obama to Hillary if they hope to preserve their own credibility and prevail in November 2008."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Personally, I can find ways to interpret Obama's statements so that they work for me. I find it hard to explain an interpretation that will be palatable to these actual voters. As I have said, a pol's job is to get elected. That means capture votes from as many folks as possible. As a voter, I do not want pandering to xenophobes, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. but I do not require useless antagonizing of voters. I love political courage -- but political courage with a purpose. Obama committed a gaffe. All the spin in the world won't change that."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "For me, this is just the sort of thing that raises doubts about the discipline of Obama's campaign and his readiness to run a general. Recently he's allayed many of my concerns and my confidence in him as our potential nominee has been growing; this episode has shaken that confidence. First he goes bowling when he doesn't actually know how to bowl and now he sounds as though he's talking down to those that vote on 'guns, god and gays.' The overall impression one is left with brings memories of John Kerry on a windsurfer crashing back. And this guy's running on judgment?"
• Beeton continues: "Look, I'm not saying Obama is actually an elitist or is out of touch with every day voters at all. Unfortunately, reality is often beside the point and perception rules and I suspect Obama is losing the perception war here. The fact is, he probably has a more credible claim to the feel your pain mantle than Hillary Clinton does, having spent years as a community organizer in Chicago, but then how has he managed to cede this ground to Clinton? How has he managed to fuel this perception of him that will be used by the right whether Hillary Clinton jumps on it or not? How has he managed to lose control of what for much of 2008 had been quite disciplined messaging?"

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt wonders if John Edwards will now decide to endorse Clinton: "I can't help wondering what John Edwards thinks about Barack Obama's slam of rural Americans. [...] No one understands swift-boating better than Edwards, given the effect it had on his and John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. The last thing he wants is a John McCain win in November. [...] If Edwards thinks Obama will get swift-boated by Republicans over his remarks about these small town, blue collar voters he cares most about (on top of the Rev. Wright flap) -- will he decide Hillary is more electable in November and decide to endorse her?"

OBAMA IV: The Arrogance!

Conservative bloggers are slamming Obama for his comments:

• Michelle Malkin: "Now, we don't need to guess anymore what [Obama]'s thinking when he's on the campaign trail in rural and small-town Pennsylvania. Instead of hard-working, patriotic, faithful Americans, he sees 'bitter,' 'frustrated,' resentful scary people whom he'll readily diss while sipping Chardonnay in Baghdad by the Bay. A real man of the people, that Barack '37' Obama, ain't he?"
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[Obama] is an arrogant jerk. He and his wife just can't help themselves. Are Americans really going to elect a guy who thinks hard times causes people to snuggle up to guns and God and makes it sound like guns and God are bad things? Likewise, this is a man whose wife thinks we are a mean spirited nation that she only recently decided she was proud of, he's friend's with a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon and the Capitol in the name of communist revolution, and his spiritual mentor claims the white man created AIDS to kill the black man -- not to mention the whole Zionist conspiracy thing."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[Obama] assumes that gun ownership, religious faith, and a desire to enforce border security grows out of a mental defect or simple petulance. He cannot understand any of it as deeply held values or beliefs because they are all so foreign to him. His cure is a huge, whopping dose of government intervention to replace all of it. That's the hubris, the condescension, and the elitism rolled up into a precise point."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Is Obama's campaign over? It may be. I don't see how anyone known to have uttered these words can be elected President. [...] Barack Obama's arrogance has been evident for some time, and it's no shock, perhaps, to learn that that he shares this bigoted opinion, common among urban liberals, of people who live in 'small towns.' But to actually express it, in public, at a campaign event, is stunningly stupid. Nevertheless, Obama did it."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "On the one hand, this quote represents an elitist attitude by Obama in that people's desire to own a gun or to practice religion is given a negative connotation, being diminished as 'a way to explain their frustrations' and put in the same category as 'anti-immigration sentiment.' But moving beyond that, it is utterly incoherent. What on earth does the decline of manufacturing jobs and the shift to a service economy have to do with gun ownership? Who loses their job at a steel mill, and decides, 'Man, I'm really pissed off that I lost my job. I better go purchase a rifle'?"

OBAMA V: You're Out Of Touch, I'm Out Of Time

Many conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's comments reflect his lack of understanding of middle America:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Are the Democrats getting ready to nominate a man who understands the people of small town Indonesia (and Kenya) better than he does those of small town America -- and likes and respects them more, too?"
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "What does Barack Obama, of the international upbringing and elite education actually know about ordinary Americans?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Incredible. I knew his politics were radical from his memoir. But I had no idea that his contempt for middle America was so complete. Do the Democrats dare nominate someone so completely clueless about the heartland?"
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "Yes, I'm a foreigner. But it takes one to know one, and this guy seems weirdly disconnected from everything except neo-segregationist Afrocentric grievance politics and upscale white liberal condescension. Not much of a coalition."

OBAMA VI: This Is What All Liberals Think!

Many conservative bloggers believe that Obama's statements reflect the views of most liberals:

• Commentary's John Podhoretz: "Barack Obama has done what Democratic candidates for president invariably do -- he has revealed the profound sense of unearned superiority that is the sad and persistent hallmark of contemporary liberalism. [...] This sort of liberal caricature was so prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s that it helped convince tens of millions of die-hard Democrats that their own party no longer had their best interests at heart -- that it, in fact, viewed them as some kind of enemy, as a reactionary force for evil -- and led them to pull the lever first for Richard Nixon in 1972 and then for Ronald Reagan in 1980."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "[Obama's statement is] snobbish, elitist, and condescending -- and it's also very representative of what Obama and most other liberals think of average Americans. They think most Americans are fearful, bitter, dumb, and need to be led around by their betters AKA liberals. Why, if the average American were just as smart as a liberal is, he'd realize that religion is the opiate of the masses, guns cause crime, and illegal immigrants have as much right to enjoy the fruits of America as Americans do. I hate to tell you this, but Barack Obama just said what the average liberal thinks."
• RedState's absentee: "Senator Obama is deeply mired in leftist philosophies: moral relativism, multi-culturalism, open borders, and on and on. One of the most sacred of cows on that side of the fence is the basic philosophical understanding of the unwashed masses as being essentially incorrectable evolutionary throwbacks, cavemen...barbarians."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[Obama's argument] is a variation on the left's refrain about the 'politics of fear,' in which any issue that might conceivably benefit a conservative opponent -- immigration, 'values,' and above all terrorism -- is waved away as a stumbling block to progress contrived by The Man to keep the People down."

CLINTON: Is Hillary On McCain's Payroll?!

Liberal bloggers are furious that Clinton is (in their view) reinforcing the traditional GOP narrative about "elitist" Dems. They see this episode as additional evidence that Clinton is damaging the Dems' chances in November:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Never underestimate the power of Hillary Clinton to say anything -- anything -- even if it abets the Republican party. Today, she launched an attack on Obama that could have come right from the RNC."
• BooMan: "Clinton is providing ammo for the Republicans and doing all she can to hurt Obama's ability to attract voters that we need in the fall. The reason this is intolerable is that she has no chance of being the nominee. I know that she may believe otherwise, but her delusions are not a legitimate excuse. If she has a 2012 strategy, where she hopes that McCain wins the election so she can run against him in four years, that is even less acceptable. These attacks are a distortion of what Obama said, and certainly of what he meant. And the Clintons know this and don't care. It's a scorched earth strategy and party elders need to step in and put a stop to it."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If the party elders (are there any?) can not figure out what this power-mad lunatic is doing to not only Obama, but the goals of the party, and if they can not realize how she is simply, in her quest for the Presidency, reinforcing the bullshit Republican narrative, then the Democrats don't deserve to win. If people can not stand up to Clinton and call her on this crap, we deserve four years of McCain."
• Oliver Willis: "Hillary Clinton and her surrogates sure feel a strong need to echo right-wing attacks versus Sen. Obama. And that's fine with me. At the end of the day this will teach us that no matter what the Clintons cannot be trusted anywhere near the leadership of the Democratic party in the future. At the same time it also shows us the problems we would have encountered should she have won the nomination. Reacting like a scared ninny to the prospect of Republicans saying bad things about you has been a recipe for Democratic failure for almost half of my life. The Clinton response turns out to be just to echo the right wing without doing anything constructive about it and hope the media gets bored, while the [Howard] Dean/Obama posture is to return fire until their ships are in Davy Jones' Locker."
• Benen: "In the hopes of making Obama unelectable, Clinton and Republicans insist that he must hate working families and small towns. We've reached the very odd point at which the Clinton campaign is distributing talking points from Grover Norquist and Ed Rollins."

CLINTON II: Who Wants To Play Duck Hunt?

Although conservative bloggers are calling Obama "out of touch" with middle America, most of them don't believe Clinton is any more "authentic" than the IL senator:

• Hinderaker: "Obama's sneering attitude toward religion, gun ownership and concern about illegal immigration showed that, for many Pennsylvanians, he is not 'one of them.' The problem that faces Hillary Clinton as she tries to take advantage of Obama's moment of candor is that, in terms of authenticity, she has little or nothing on her opponent. Like Obama, she was a strong advocate of gun control earlier in her career. And the flash of resentment she showed when asked when she last attended church shows how unable, or unwilling, she is to be 'one of them' when it comes to religious life."
• Hewitt: "[This controversy] may not be enough to resurrect Hillary's campaign given that her distance from ordinary Americans is pretty profound as well, but John McCain's claim on the respect if not the affection of Americans of all backgrounds will contrast sharply and to his favor with Obama's condescending attribution of bitterness all around."

Other conservative bloggers are mocking Clinton's attempts to exploit Obama's comments by touting her experience with guns:

• AmSpec Blog's Conor Friedersdorf: "Hillary Clinton, gun culture sympathizer and afficianado. What a patronizing phony."
• Allahpundit: "Coming soon: Hillary heads down to the range to squeeze off a few shots from her new .45. Will she don a cowboy hat for the occasion? Only she and her pollster know for sure!"
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Hush up Hill. Obama made a huge blunder. But Hillary marched in the million mom march. [She's] not going to be able to move in as Second Amendment First Lady."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin feels differently: "Who would have thought that the Wellesley grad, Yale Law School-trained Hillary Clinton would be a whiskey-chugging, pizza-chomping, duck-hunting, gun-lovin' gal? [...] Now conservatives might guffaw over her new-found appreciation for the Second Amendment, but there is something inarguably more down-to-earth (and if not 'normal' than at least 'ordinary') about Hillary Clinton than Obama."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Cost

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber expresses a view shared by many liberal bloggers:

"I'm not arguing that Obama doesn't have big general election liabilities. He clearly does. I'm just arguing that he's almost certainly going to be the nominee, that that's not going to change even if Hillary spends the next several weeks unloading on him, that the only thing this course is going to affect are his chances in the general election, and that, even if Hillary did some how pummel him hard enough to wrest away the nomination, it would be close to worthless since she'd have generated so much ill-will toward her among Democrats."

LEST WE FORGET: An Oldie But Goodie

The Onion: "Visiting Gore Calls Pennsylvania 'A Hellhole'" (August 9, 2000; h/t Instapundit):

ALTOONA, PA -- During a campaign stop at an Altoona paper mill Monday, presidential contender Al Gore launched into an unexpected 40-minute tirade against the 'not-so-great state of Pennsylvania,' calling it 'the nation's armpit' and 'a total hellhole.'

'Over the past few days, I have traveled all over your state and met many of you. And what has impressed me most is that no matter where I have gone, my reaction has been the same: "Oh, God, get me the f*ck out of this dump,"' said Gore, who alternately referred to the Keystone State's 12 million residents as 'animals' and 'ghouls.' 'From Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, from Erie to Easton, the places and faces of Pennsylvania stand in direct opposition to everything that makes America great.' [...]

Gore concluded his day on the steps of the State Capitol in Harrisburg, where he lowered the Pennsylvania flag, shredded it with a large hunting knife, and urinated on the shreds."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:21 PM

April 11, 2008

4/11: Getting Lost In The Shuffle?

Although Hillary Clinton continues to receive plenty of mainstream media coverage, she's probably feeling a bit neglected by political bloggers. Lately, bloggers have been so focused on the potential Barack Obama-John McCain match-up that Clinton's been getting lost in the shuffle. On the left, bloggers are slamming McCain for refusing (so far) to support a reformed G.I. Bill that provides educational assistance to veterans. On the right, bloggers are accusing Obama of "associating with individuals who are virulently anti-American and anti-Israel." Meanwhile, Clinton's been getting lost in the crossfire (although, to be fair, a few righty bloggers are criticizing Bill Clinton 's defense of Hillary's Bosnia sniper-fire story).

Clinton's online people are probably hoping that a big win in PA will remind bloggers that the Dem primary isn't over yet. But for now, conservative bloggers seem intent on negatively defining Obama, while liberal bloggers seem intent on stopping McCain's polling rise.

MCCAIN: Rising, Like Yeast

Conservative bloggers are excited about recent polls by AP-Ipsos and the RNC that show McCain leading Obama:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "The McCain poll surge [is] real. [...] There may well be fissures in the Democratic party that will not be healed irrespective of who the nominee is. To be sure, a number of those disaffected Democrats will come back to the fold. But if a few of them remain out, it could make all of the difference in a close election."
• RedState's California Yankee: "The AP-Ipsos poll, like this recent Rasmussen poll, provides more evidence that the Democrats face a serious problem with Democrat deserters. [...] Not a good omen for Obama."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The gap in party affiliation continues to grow in favor of the Democrats, and after eight years of an unpopular President, Republicans should be in deep trouble for November. In fact, most analysts figured that either Obama or Hillary could easily beat whomever the GOP offered as its sacrificial lamb this fall. McCain, though, turns out to be the near-perfect Republican candidate in this election, and he has the Democrats to thank for it. Instead of triangulating to the center, both Obama and Hillary have run to the far Left. [...] Meanwhile, McCain's existing credibility with independents and moderates has allowed him to quietly gain supporters without alienating the Republican base -- again, thanks to the leftward push of the two Democrats."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin urges caution: "Poll-wonks are convinced that McCain's advantage lies in his atypical GOP profile and his personal characteristics: even Democratic polling reveals that McCain's greatest strength is his reputation as 'a man of integrity.' But herein lies a trap for the McCain team: the temptation to run on biography alone. Biographical campaigns did not treat Bob Dole or John Kerry well. And it seems foolhardy to say 'We'll take the biography; let the Democrats take the issues.' The danger with that is that Americans will end up voting for the candidate speaking to their issues and concerns. (It may also overlook the lesson of Rudy Giuliani's campaign: sky high early polling numbers for a national hero can melt away overnight.)"

On the left, Chris Bowers is still confident that Obama can beat McCain: "I'm starting to feel more and more confident about the general election overall. McCain has led Obama in only three of the last eleven general election polls, and that is before Obama starts pressing his very real advantages in the general election. Come June, Obama will be able to start pushing advantages like a 3-1 fundraising advantage, vastly superior grassroots energy and organization, real media focus on McCain, a slowly uniting Democratic Party, and no more validating of Republican attacks on topics like 'inexperience' and 'Jeremiah Wright' by the Clinton campaign (although those have largely stopped now, anyway). If Obama enters the general election phase of the campaign tied with McCain, you have to feel really good about Obama's chances in the general election."

MCCAIN II: Support The G.I. Bill, Senator

Liberal bloggers are discussing yesterday's Los Angeles Times op-ed by Gen. Wesley Clark and VoteVets.org chair Jon Soltz. In their op-ed, Clark and Soltz complain that McCain "appears reluctant" to support the new G.I. Bill sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), which provides educational assistance to veterans:

• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "While McCain is willing to have troops in Iraq for a hundred years...he's not willing to put support behind an improved version of the GI Bill that would help see more veterans through four years of college. [...] There are three other Vietnam veterans in the Senate. All have signed onto this bill. Senator John Warner, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee...has signed on. [...] So where is McCain?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "From a patriotic perspective, this is showing real support for the troops. From a military perspective, it might make recruiting easier if young people know they can go to college after their service for free. From an economic perspective, the country benefits when thousands of educated young people enter the workforce with degrees, as opposed to the alternative. [...] What possible reason could there be to oppose education benefits for veterans? Why would McCain hesitate?"
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Updating the GI Bill seems like a political no-brainer...After all, who's opposed to a college education for returning Iraq vets? Well, the Department of Defense, for one. They're afraid that updating GI benefits will hurt retention rates as soldiers leave the service to go to college. Charming, no? And of course, it would cost too much. Can't have that when it comes to programs that involve actual help for actual people. Apparently we're better off spending money on sugar subsidies and mediating gang wars in Iraq than we are helping vets get an education. Where's Mr. Straight Talk when you need him?"

MCCAIN III: C'mon, You Know He's A Neocon

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing a recent New York Times article that describes a power struggle between neoconservatives and realists within McCain's circle of foreign policy advisors. According to these bloggers, the evidence is clear that McCain identifies more with neoconservative doctrine:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The New York Times would like us to believe that though John McCain thought we should mount a land invasion of Serbia in 1999, argued for a policy of rogue-state rollback in 2000, chaperoned Ahmed Chalabi around town for years, began beating the drums for an invasion of Iraq in 2002, and has threatened war with North Korea and Iran that he's really torn between two factions of advisors -- hawkish neocons and more sensible realists. One problem with this theory is McCain's record. As McCain likes to note, he has a lot of experience national security issues -- he's not some obscure governor being tutored by some eminences grises -- and his record shows that sometime in the 1990s he swung to become the most consistently aggressive hawk in the U.S. Senate."
• Benen: "If there was a fight, the realists lost a long time ago. The Times article suggests there's a real tension that exists with the McCain camp, but if there is a conflict, it's not the product of ideological uncertainty. [...] I'm surprised the Times would even characterize this as a question. Look who has McCain's ear and tell me he's not a neocon."

MCCAIN IV: You Had It Right The First Time!

McCain is taking heat from fiscally conservative bloggers for yesterday's speech on the housing crisis, in which McCain "pivoted [and] called for the government to help qualified homeowners with subprime mortgages refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages":

• Michelle Malkin: "I knew I should have withheld comment. Last month, I said something nice about John McCain's tough-sounding stand against federal housing bailouts. Should have known better. Maverick schmaverick."
• NRO's David Freddoso: "So McCain wants to 'combine the power of government and the private sector to find immediate solutions for deserving American homeowners.' It sounds more like he's using your money to bail out over-leveraged McMansioners in California, Florida and Nevada, and guaranteeing bad loans for the banks that made them. His plan is not as bad as the Democrats' plan, but that isn't saying much."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "I was on hand for McCain's big economic speech [yesterday]. What a disappointment. I shared David [Freddoso]'s dismay upon learning of McCain's 'Democrat-lite' approach to bailing out borrowers and lenders."

Yousefzadeh is less critical of McCain's speech: "John McCain's plan to combat the housing crisis...is certainly more responsible than anything that the Clinton and Obama campaigns have put forward."

OBAMA: A Friend Of My Enemy Is My Enemy

Several conservative bloggers are discussing yesterday's Los Angeles Times front-page article by Peter Wallsten, entitled, "Allies of Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama: They Consider Him Receptive Despite His Clear Support of Israel":

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "We now have a clear pattern from Jeremiah Wright's comments on down, of Obama associating with individuals who are virulently anti-American and anti-Israel. When pressed, he denies that he shares any of the same views either by himself or through surrogates. I don't see how much longer people can find him remotely credible. I know I'm getting really sick of it."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Prominent Palestinian activists, some of them friends with Obama...claim that his strident support for Israel of late is essentially an electoral posture. Some of that's surely informed by a crude identity-politics notion that a minority candidate must secretly sympathize with the Middle East's own self-styled minority, but there's more to it."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "What's troubling is that the international community is not all that different from Trinity United in its views on Israel. Over the course of this campaign, Obama has emphasized the need to rebuild weakened international institutions and repair frayed alliances. But at what cost? If he thought it was in service to this larger good, would he sit silently in the pews of the General Assembly as Zionism was equated with racism? Supporters of Israel are bound to worry."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty compares Obama unfavorably to previous Dem candidates: "John Kerry had many flaws -- some of us blogged for six months about them -- but even he didn't collect longtime ties, friendships, and relationships with people who regularly expressed contempt for America in public (Michelle Obama, Wright), or [Yasser] Arafat's right hand man ([Rashid] Khalidi) and efforts to blow up American landmarks (Bill Ayers). Al Gore looks downright palatable compared to the radical anti-Americanism that has simmered around Obama for the past decade."

OBAMA II: You Can't Trust Someone Who Is Liked By Some Arabs

Most liberal bloggers, in contrast, are extremely critical of the LA Times piece:

• TPM Cafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "This is all part of the continuing effort (especially in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh these days) to paint Obama as something less than a friend of Israel. This is nothing new. But this article hits new lows. It produces no evidence whatsoever other than that Obama has had Arab friends, attended Arab dinners, and is believed by Arabs to feel 'empathy' toward Palestinians. In other words, Obama is not to be trusted by Jews because some Arabs like him. [...] Those who keep using Jews and Israel as a wedge are doing us no favors. A tiny vulnerable minority, the last thing we need is to be used as a battering ram against any candidate. The tactic is as dangerous as it is ugly and cynical."
• The Nation's Ari Berman: "Does being friends with Palestinians make one anti-Israel? Peter Wallsten of the LA Times apparently thinks so. [...] The evidence Wallsten presents is scant and hardly alarming: Obama said nice things about Rashid Khalidi at a going away party for the respected Palestinian scholar...he attended a speech by the late Palestinian expert Edward Said in 1998; he occasionally made statements supportive of Palestinians to Palestinian activists he knew in Chicago. Yet the implicit tone of Wallsten's article suggests that Obama is not to be trusted on matters relating to Israel. Left aside is the fact that one can be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel (at least in Chicago). Or the fact that the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution to the conflict, the same position held by Obama. [...] The accusation that Obama is 'anti-Israel' isn't really about Obama or Israel. It's about racism, Islamophobia, and an attempt by Obama's political opponents to score a few cheap political points."
• The Huffington Post's Jon Wiener: "That this would be considered page one news today is a sign of just how low American politics -- and political reporting -- has fallen."

Unlike her fellow liberal bloggers, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt (an outspoken Clinton supporter) thinks the article reveals ugly truths about Obama: "Where's Obama on Israel and the Palestinians? On both sides. Since running for President, he's become an outspoken supporter of Israel. While in the Illinois legislature, he was a friend, supporter and beneficiary of Palestinians whose organizations trashed Israel. [...] The highest ranking Jewish leader in PA is Governor Ed Rendell, who supports Hillary, as does Rep. Allyson Schwartz. The way I see it: It's true that Obama has been a supporter of Israel since becoming Senator and especially since running for President. But, as a state legislator in Illinois, he more often expressed his support for Palestinian rights and opposition to Israel's militarism. What will he do as President? Will he support one at the expense of the other or be committed to a two-state solution? Toss a coin, you have a 50% chance of being right."

Sadly, No!'s Brad is aghast at Merritt's post: "Oh. My. God. [...] You're serious. Holy sh*t, you're serious. You honestly believe that supporting Palestinian rights and opposing Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is somehow incompatible with a two-state solution? Jeralyn, sane people realized long, long ago that it's impossible to have a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians when the Israelis are using their military to defend illegal settlements in the West Bank."

CLINTON: Truth Deficit Disorder?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Bill Clinton for offering a factually inaccurate defense of Hillary's Bosnia sniper-fire story:

• Allahpundit: "Unbelievable: [Bill] Clinton lies shamelessly about Hillary's shameless Tuzla lie...So shamelessly, in fact, that you'll spot the lie immediately if you followed the story with any degree of closeness. This sort of thing simply has to be compulsive for him. In no rational world does it make sense to reintroduce this subject, lie about it, and lie about it so clumsily that the press would have to rub his face in it even if they didn't want to."
• Michelle Malkin: "This is Bill Clinton's brain on truth deficit disorder again. Laughingstock."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Clinton was...maintaining the usual ratio of factuality to bologna that he has established in other defenses of Ms. Hillary."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The whole story is bogus. There was no sniper fire or threat of sniper fire; no flak jackets; no nothing."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sure, Howard, Sure

Allahpundit doesn't buy DNC Chair Howard Dean's claim that "Mitt Romney was the candidate [he] feared the most in the general":

"[Dean] feared a guy who couldn't beat McCain in New Hampshire despite the huge financial advantage, months of early campaigning, and proximity to the state he governed? He feared the social con whose faith and very belated conversion to the cause left him suspect in the eyes of much of the Christian base? Whose own most devout supporters felt compelled to beg him in the pages of the New York Times to stop running such a phony campaign? I thought Mitt would have been the easiest to beat of the big four in a general election: McCain and Giuliani would have captured the center and taken their chances with the right and [Mike] Huckabee would have done the opposite. Who would Romney have captured?"

LEST WE FORGET: Guess We're Not Eating Today, Huh?

From Overheard in New York:

Six-year-old boy: I'm excited! Pizza, pizza, pizza!
Father: How do you spell "pizza"?
Six-year-old boy: P...I... Z... Z... O?
Father: Close, son. Try again.
Six-year-old boy: F?
Father: No...
Six-year-old boy: Q? G? L? [starting to cry.] I just don't know!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

April 10, 2008

4/10: Mo Money, Mo Problems

Bloggers on both the left and right are discussing Barack Obama's recent hints that he'll turn down public financing in the general election if he wins the Dem nod. While liberal bloggers acknowledge that John McCain and his surrogates will criticize Obama for breaking his pledge, they support Obama's decision for several reasons. First of all, they believe that McCain has little credibility on this issue due to his own campaign finance troubles. Second, they think Obama makes a compelling argument that he really is adhering to the spirit of campaign finance reform by relying heavily on low-dollar contributions and by refusing money from PACs and federal lobbyists. Third (and perhaps most significantly), they think Obama's ability to raise unprecedented amounts of money from private donors will be crucial to his success in November.

Conservative bloggers, naturally, are hitting Obama for going back on his word. However, many of them have problems with campaign finance reform and have little sympathy for McCain on this issue. While righty bloggers expect (and encourage) McCain to "make a stink about Obama reneging on his pledge", they're still worried about McCain getting crushed by Obama's fundraising in the general election.

OBAMA: You Can't Fight An Election With One Hand Tied Behind Your Back

Should Obama decide to turn down public financing in the general election (which he's been hinting he'll do), it looks like liberal bloggers will fully support Obama's decision:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "John McCain and his surrogates are going to make a lot of hay about this -- they have to because there's no way that the McCain campaign would be able to compete dollar for dollar with the massive grassroots fundraising organization that is the Obama campaign -- but McCain has little credibility here. Remember, there remains an outstanding FEC complaint against McCain alleging that he is in violation on campaign finance law, specifically by blowing past the mandatory spending cap that comes along with acceptance of public financing. [...] Obama really is adhering to the spirit of campaign finance reform by refusing PAC and federal lobbyist donations. [...] Finally, going beyond the optics and ethics of a move towards grassroots rather than public financing for a general election, it's fairly clear that by opening up his campaign to contributions from the American people, Obama would greatly enhance his ability to win in November."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "John McCain, the one-time champion of campaign finance reform, is a campaign finance criminal. He scammed the public financing system last year, but the scam backfired because McCain is stuck in it now according to the Federal Elections Commission. And, McCain has busted the public finance system spending cap, which is a criminal offense. There is absolutely no way Barack Obama should get entangled in any sort of campaign finance agreement with McCain. No way. McCain has shown he can't be trusted."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It looks like Obama is beginning to lay the groundwork to turn down public financing. [...ABC's] Jake Tapper wants to know if we buy [Obama's] argument. I for damn sure do. Until we have full public financing, this is the best answer to our money-centered system."
• Oliver Willis: "[Obama]'s laying the groundwork to opt-out of the public finance system in the general election. This is so important, because swamping McCain could lead to a result where the needle isn't just moved slightly in one direction but instead is turned to 11. It would be a sledgehammer to the Berlin wall of conservatism."

OBAMA II: ...But You Promised!

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are less forgiving of Obama's apparent desire to break his pledge to accept public financing:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "It would make sense for someone who says he supports the public financing of campaigns to use public financing, right? Not if you're Barack Obama."
• Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan: "How can Obama in good conscience go back not only on his promise to accept public financing, but even to negotiate with McCain regarding the same? Is this the new kind of politics that Obama promises?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[Obama]'s more or less coming out and saying that his public pledges meant nothing. [...] By a 'parallel public financing system,' Obama means that he is getting a lot of money from private donors. If this is 'public', then every other candidate who has ever run for office has used a 'parallel public financing system' too. Come on, Senator. Don't tell me words don't matter."

Other conservative bloggers don't feel much sympathy for McCain when it comes to the issue of campaign finance:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The right has always treated campaign donations as a subset of free speech, which makes it hard to get too indignant about a candidate opting out and thereby giving his donors a 'voice.' The only well positioned critic is Maverick himself, who'll make a stink about Obama reneging on his pledge, get some minor political mileage out of it from a few weeks, and then go back to the hard business of figuring out how to fill a fundraising gap that may approach nine figures. Gulp."
• Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "For conservatives, this is kind of a non-starter. We aren't supposed to believe in public financing anyway."

OBAMA III: Vice President Biden?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Marc Ambinder's decision to put Joe Biden on the shortlist to be Obama's running mate:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias doesn't think Obama should choose someone who voted for the Iraq War: "Biden's a sometimes maddening figure, but he's been impressive lately and there's a lot to be said on his behalf. But putting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain [George W.] Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum disagrees: "Once he leaves the cozy confines of a primary where the anti-war base is enough to win, Obama is going to enter the chillier territory of a general election where he'll need to draw a bunch of votes from the ranks of people who once supported the war. He needs a good way to signal these folks that he doesn't consider them tainted forever by their erstwhile support, and what better way than by choosing a moderately hawkish senator who once favored the war but has since changed his mind? The opposite tack -- insisting that he'll associate only with the pure of heart who opposed the war from the beginning -- would be something of a disaster. People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots."

Drum's post provoked strong responses from several liberal bloggers:

• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "[John] Kerry thought he could win by echoing the muddled nature of public opinion at the time, and look where that got him. If voters are confused...they are all the more open to someone who offers a simple, clear, compelling narrative. That's why Republicans are focusing like laser on the supposed success of the surge -- it may be wrong, but it's a simple, easy to understand story. Picking Biden is a bad idea because it undermines Obama's core message on foreign policy -- that he has the judgment not just to lead us out of Iraq, but to make good decisions in the future -- is undermined by picking someone who publicly exhibited the bad judgment he's been criticizing for months."
• Booman: "Kevin Drum offers Barack Obama some truly craptacular running mate advice...This is just a variation on the 'serious person' argument. Only people who were for the war can be president or vice-president (in this case) because people don't like to be reminded that they are effing stupid, or because they don't trust people that do not use military force first and ask questions later. Run on your superior judgment in opposing the war and then make your first major decision picking a running mate that voted for the war. Seriously, Kevin, WTF?"

Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen has a more complicated view: "I tend to think Kevin's right about this, in part because Obama already has credibility on the issue by virtue of having gotten the big question right. He wouldn't necessarily need a running mate who agreed with him on Iraq from the start, and would disqualify many qualified people if he did. That said, I have a few concerns...The very first thought that popped into my mind was that awful ranking system from the National Journal. If Biden were Obama's running mate, the RNC and its cohorts will boast that the Democratic ticket featured the #1 and #3 most liberal senators. It'd be ridiculous, but I guarantee it'd be at the top of the talking points. [...Also, Biden's] negatives are numerous. First and foremost, Biden led the way on that ridiculous bankruptcy bill, and I'll probably never forgive him for it. Second, he eschews message discipline, and is well known for sticking his foot in his mouth with embarrassing gaffes. Third, I can't think of a single state or constituency that Biden would help Obama win in a general election that Obama couldn't win just as easily with someone else."

OBAMA IV: Going Easy On Beijing?

The bloggers at RedState are slamming Obama for taking a softer stance than Hillary Clinton on the question of whether or not President Bush should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Barack Obama's spine is apparently made of jello. No wonder the guy's wife has never been proud of America and thinks people are really mean. Heck, her husband is ready to hand the keys to the nation over to China and welcome them as our communist overlords. [...] If Barack Obama will not stand up to the Chinese for their persecution of Christians, Tibetans, Falun Gong, and their persecution of people in general who speak out against their government, he is not fit to lead the land of the free and home of the brave. Why? Because if Barack Obama is too intimidated by a bunch of communist Chinese, he is a wuss."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "It's like [Obama] combines the worst qualities of the machine and reform politician. You get all of the mutual back-scratching and none of the mutual loyalty; and all of the self-serving twaddle, but none of the overriding moral sense."

In contrast, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey doesn't think this is a big deal: "What does this mean? Not much...[Obama] has an adviser who also acts as a high-ranking member of a -- gasp -- Olympic Bid committee! The most that can be said for this is that Obama will kowtow to a special interest, at least in silence. He's willing to criticize China for its human rights abuses and support for Sudan, but won't target the Olympics out of deference to his friend. While one could fashion an argument out of that, it's pretty thin gruel, and Obama has plenty of other vulnerabilities in this election without pulling a muscle on this effort."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Unfavorable Terrain For Dems

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Dems should avoid arguing over experience:

"Democrats should not engage in value-neutral and non-ideological arguments over qualifications to be President, including foreign policy experience, foreign policy knowledge, and the number of times someone has held a committee hearing. Obama in particular needs to avoid this line of argumentation, because for a long time he had it right when he emphasized foreign policy judgment. This is because the amount of time someone has spent dealing with or studying foreign policy does not, in and of itself, make someone better at foreign policy.

During the two Supreme Court nomination fights under Bush, [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito, the Republican/conservative strategy was the same: emphasize how the extensive experience of Roberts and Alito made them qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, in and of itself, rather than any views they might actually hold on interpreting the Constitution. They put forth non-ideological arguments over Supreme Court qualifications, and two conservative judges breezed through the nomination process as a result. If Democrats openly engage in the same sort of non-ideological arguments over qualifications to become President, then we could see another conservative, John McCain, breeze through an election to become President no matter what extreme foreign policy positions he may hold."

LEST WE FORGET: Film School In Three Lines Or Less

McSweeney's contributor Ben Joseph:

Citizen Kane
CHARLES FOSTER KANE: I'm dying now. I miss my childhood.
REPORTER: Wealth and power have truly made you an asshole.
WORKER: No one cares if I burn this sled, right?

West Side Story
TONY: Cinema has a long literary tradition. This one's based on Shakespeare.
MARIA: Just like that Amanda Bynes movie!
TONY: (Sigh.) Let's just dance-fight.

The Philadelphia Story
CARY GRANT: Sex in the 1940s took place entirely in the form of witty banter.
KATHARINE HEPBURN: Indubitably.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:30 PM

April 09, 2008

4/9: War Talk

As the political world focuses on the congressional hearings with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, political bloggers are also turning their attention to Iraq. Liberal bloggers are slamming John McCain for confusing Shiites and Sunnis (again) while questioning Gen. Petraeus about Al Qaeda in Iraq. As the netroots have been quick to note, this is not the first time that McCain has confused Shiites and Sunnis. Liberal bloggers view these misstatements as evidence that McCain is ignorant about the players involved in the Iraq conflict and that he shouldn't be considered credible on national security.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are forcefully pushing back against claims that McCain wants to continue the Iraq War for another 100 years. In their view, the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton camps have been deliberately distorting McCain's words (and several non-partisan organizations agree with them). Liberal bloggers, however, are pushing back against the push-back by denying that they're taking McCain's words out of context. As Atrios writes, "[McCain's] point was perfectly clear, that he's happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to 'win' and then he's happy to stay there even longer."

MCCAIN: Oops!...I Did It Again

Liberal bloggers are piling on McCain for confusing Shiites and Sunnis while discussing Al Qaeda in Iraq (a Sunni group) at yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:

McCain: "Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?"
Petraeus: "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago."
McCain: "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?"
Petraeus: "No, no sir."
McCain: "Or Sunnis or anybody else then?"

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I suppose that eventually the press is bound to notice that McCain is seriously confused about the religious and political dynamics of Iraq and the greater Middle East, right? Maybe around December or so."


• Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "It's really embarrassing that the guy who has built his whole campaign over staying in Iraq doesn't understand the players at all. Of course the media will never point this out, but it's ridiculous that he has made the same gaffe over and over again and can still be considered credible on National Security."


• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "Now, I know that there is a bit of gotcha going on here. But this man claims that his greatest qualification for the Presidency is that he understands foreign policy. But the differences between Sunni and Shi'a matter. They matter a lot! And this nasty habit of mixing it up just seriously needs to stop."


• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "If John McCain still doesn't understand that Al Qaeda is a Sunni group largely opposed to Shiites (as well as Americans and others) -- not a Shiite group aligned with Iran -- does he really have the national security acumen and understanding to be commander-in-chief?"


• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "McCain still seems fixated on the idea of just tagging them all al-Qaeda so we can let bombs sort it out."

MCCAIN II: 100 Years Of Solitude

As we've noted before, conservative bloggers are fiercely defending McCain against accusations that the GOP candidate wants to continue the Iraq War for another 100 years -- a charge that the Columbia Journalism Review calls "seriously misleading":

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The Obama campaign and lefties everywhere are still pushing the story that John McCain said he wanted to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years or 1000 years or 10,000 years. Despite the fact that major nonpartisan organizations are saying that is a total distortion of the record, the lefties and a bunch of journalists are keeping on. [...] It shows an utter lack of military knowledge on the part of the Democrats that they would equate a standing military presence in a country with war. If we follow their logic, we must still be at war in Japan and Germany and Korea."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "The Democrats are just operating under [Vladimir] Lenin's maxim that 'a lie told often enough becomes truth'. They are just trying to spread lies to hope that it sinks in to a couple of voters."

Liberal bloggers, however, are pushing back against the push-back:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Republicans can see how John McCain's 100 years comments (remember, he said it repeatedly) can be made into an albatross around his neck. So they're going for the full court press. [...] Here's why Republicans are scared to death of this. No one wants to be in Iraq 100 years from now, even if McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won't cost any money. If that's the explanation for why we shouldn't be concerned that he's happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world. They need to stop people from talking about it at all because their explanation for what he meant is at least as bad as what he really said."
• Atrios: "I've read the numerous attempts by conservatives and mainstream journalists to complain that somehow people are being mean and unfair to [McCain] by taking his '100 years' comment 'out of context' or 'distorting it' or whatever. For the life of me I don't understand what their complaint is. His point was perfectly clear, that he's happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to 'win' and then he's happy to stay there even longer. They could perform some actual journalism by asking him just how long Americans should keep getting killed in Iraq, just how much taxpayers' money he's willing to spend or how many American lives should be lost in Iraq just so we can get to the point when no more American lives are being lost in Iraq."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "What we're seeing unfold is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people -- everyone, really -- to stop using the words 'McCain,' 'Iraq,' and '100 years' in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts. [...] Republicans insist that McCain's words have been 'distorted.' In some instances, that may be true. But what they probably fear the most is taking McCain's comments on Iraq at face value. They don't need embellishment -- they're devastating all on their own."

MCCAIN III: Hatin' On Roc-A-Fella

Conservative bloggers are defending McCain against the following critique made by Obama supporter/WV Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If this sounds familiar to you, it should; it's basically what the North Vietnamese said about McCain while they tortured him in the POW camps. It indicts everyone in the Air Force and the Navy whose job it is to fire laser-guided missiles now in places like Afghanistan and Iraq."


• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Is there an effort to portray fighter pilots as somehow dishonorable? This would not be the first time Vietnam Veterans have been criticized and attacked for their service. These attacks are disgusting and should be considered out-of-bounds in terms of appropriate political rhetoric. [...] If Barack Obama truly wants to be a new 'brand' of politician, he should immediately condemn these remarks."


• RedState's Moe Lane: "It is the action of a partisan buffoon to call someone who has been tortured for half a decade for putting on America's uniform ignorant of the consequences of his actions."


• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "McCain was engaged in low-level attack on a heavily defended power plant in Hanoi when he was shot down. Rather than dropping bombs from the relative safety of 35,000 feet, McCain and his comrades were willing to put their lives at great risk in order to hit specific, high-value targets without the assistance of guided munitions. Though I'm sure Rockefeller, with his billion dollar trust fund, is infinitely more sensitive to the 'human issues' of the average American than John McCain."


• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Where to begin?...That McCain certainly got to see 'what happened on the ground' as a POW? That Senator McCain gets impression of how things are on the ground in Iraq from his son? That a guy in a party who spent the past five years beating the drum on 'chickenhawks' ought not send a guy who spent Vietnam in the Peace Corps to contend that fighter pilots don't 'care about the lives of people'?"


• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "I suspect these surrogates may be testing McCain's well-known temper in hopes of a press-worthy blow-up."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Steve Benen thinks McCain supporters should calm down: "Realistically, if the Obama campaign really wanted to go after McCain like this, aides probably wouldn't have called on Jay Rockefeller. The guy isn't exactly a polished attack machine. [...] I'll gladly concede that Rockefeller's comments were cheap and definitely warranted an apology, which he promptly offered. And I suppose I don't blame the McCain campaign for trying to capitalize on every available opportunity. But in general, folks really can't work themselves into too big a dither every time a pol makes a foolish attack. By the fall, no one in the political world will have any energy left at all."

OBAMA: They Like Me, They Really Like Me!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about an article by ABC's Martha Raddatz, in which Raddatz finds anecdotal evidence that some U.S. troops support Obama:

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "This is hardly a scientific survey, obviously, but more of the troops who spoke to ABC had nice things to say about Obama than about either Hillary or McCain. For some reason they seem to like the fact that Obama is promising to bring them home."
• Benen: "The troops, like the rest of the country, are ready to consider a candidate offering a change. [...] So much for the conservative assumptions about the worldview of the men and women in uniform."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "One thing wingnuts really hate is objective evidence that actual, real-life soldiers support Democrats. So they're running around accusing ABC of cherry-picking. They must not have heard that unserious defeatists Barack Hussein Obama and Ron Paulwere leading in military fundraising . They must not know that 6 out of 10 military families hate [George W.] Bush or that a Military Times poll showed that the troops hate him too. Look at the trend. [Al] Gore got less that 20% of the military vote in 2000, but thanks to Bush's excellent war, [John] Kerry more than doubled that in 2004. So don't be a bit surprised if the Democratic candidate breaks 50% this year."
• Atrios: "I've done my best to never try to make assumptions about the political views of 'the troops.' They aren't a monolithic group, they all signed up for a variety of reasons, and they have differing personal circumstances. Still to anyone with a moderate bit of intelligence it shouldn't be all that surprising that some of them might not be thrilled about their extended trip to the desert and might not be thrilled to support candidates who want to make it an even more extended trip."

Balloon Juice's John Cole isn't a fan of Raddatz's article: "While I am glad many [troops] choose Obama, I generally think this sort of journalism is stupid and pointless, and watching liberals rush to promote it will be just as irritating as it is when right-wing blogs try to claim that the troops are overwhelmingly Republican. I understand the desire to pushback against the popular meme that the troops are all right-wing, but it is just that -- a meme. As such, pushback against stupidity generally leads to more stupidity. [...] We will no doubt be treated to weeks of 'HERE ARE SOLDIERS WHO WANT MCCAIN' pieces by the various idiots in the right-wing blogosphere, much like in the wake of Cindy Sheehan's rise to notoriety we were treated to the grotesque spectacle of grieving parents who still supported the war being foisted into the media spotlight to share their grief and enthusiasm for our excellent adventure in Iraq."

OBAMA II: You Call This Journalism?!?

Conservative bloggers are sharply criticizing Raddatz's article:

• The Weekly Standard's Jaime Sneider: "Are our troops now voting exclusively Democrat? Has the Iraq war ushered in a complete transformation of the military's voting habits? While this may be a liberal journalist's wet dream, this does not make it what the rest of us refer to as reality."
• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "Remember, folks, a small collection of anecdotes chosen to tell the story a reporter wants to be told is not scientific, is not journalism, and is indicative only of the reporter's dishonesty. It is not news that some of our soldiers are registered or even partisan Democrats who support their party's potential candidates; after all, they come from amongst Americans. It is disingenuous to misrepresent the words a few of them to attempt to indicate that the entire military supports Obama because they believe Iraq is an unjust war which we should surrender immediately."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "How representative is the sample? [...] Doubtless there's been some erosion of Republican support as the war's dragged on, even within a profession that's always skewed a bit right, but to the extent suggested here? With Republicans generally overwhelmingly predisposed to staying in Iraq? Even the left acknowledges that most troops are gung ho to win the war, and that was before 10 months of security gains. Maverick's surely doing better than this."
• NRO's James S. Robbins: "ABC's Martha Raddatz scoured Iraq to discover that American soliders' presidential preferences fall into two categories: Obama and undecided. At least that was true of the few she could get to talk to her. Apparently they want to be pulled out of Iraq as much as Obama wants to pull them out. The fact that re-enlistments are highest among troops actually serving abroad (unnoted in this report) is just some pesky statistic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Unilateral Disarmament?

AmSpec Blog's James Antle:

"Will Barack Obama abide by his pledge to take public financing as long as his Republican opponent did the same? Certainly, Obama and the Democrats will look hypocritical for reneging on this deal and will emerge as a McCain talking point. But would any sane candidate give up so huge an advantage in order to avoid a controversy that may well make voters' eyes glaze?

As [Reihan] Salam points out, McCain raised $15 million in March. Not bad, and only $5 million behind Hillary Clinton. Obama raised $40 million last month. He has 1.3 million donors. Many of them are small donors hard to portray as special interests. Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. If George W. Bush had taken public financing in 2000 or 2004, it would have been unilateral disarmament. That will be equally true for Obama. And while a lot of my friends find his approach to foreign policy too peacenik for their liking, I don't think this is an area where Obama favors disarming unilaterally."

LEST WE FORGET: Businessman Takes Power Bath

From The Onion:

"ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ -- Citing a need to compete in today's 'cutthroat' business environment, PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO Samuel DiPiazza has made it a habit to drive home from his Manhattan office once a day to rapidly indulge in a 15-minute power bath. 'During today's session I got on three conference calls and appointed a new global board member, all while grabbing a few quick suds,' a robed DiPiazza told reporters Monday. 'No time to waste. I come home, draw up a quick bubble B, do a little videocon with the Japan people, slap on some brown-sugar-and-fig body butter, whip out the BlackBerry, and exfoliate the shit out of myself, and bam: totally refreshed and rejuved.' An utterly relaxed DiPiazza swerved into oncoming traffic and died in a head-on collision while driving back to work later that day."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:45 PM

April 08, 2008

4/8: Where Do We Go Now?

John Harwood's New York Times article about Hillary Clinton's "tough math" has prompted another round of declarations from liberal bloggers that the Dem race is all but over. However, liberal bloggers disagree about how and when the contest should end. Markos Moulitsas, along with many others, wants the undeclared superdelegates to endorse Barack Obama en masse and "put this thing to bed." Chris Bowers, on the other hand, believes that it's imperative that Clinton supporters "[feel] as though they were allowed to fight until there were no more realistic options remaining," and he recommends that Clinton stay in the race until June. Big Tent Democrat goes even further, arguing that Obama won't be viewed as a legitimate nominee until he accepts "a valid result, preferably through revotes, in Florida and Michigan."

How will this story end? No one knows, but it's clear that the netroots assume Obama will be the victor.

DEM FIELD: Stick A Fork In Her

Harwood's New York Times article about Clinton's "tough math" has prompted liberal bloggers to (once again) assert that the Dem race is essentially over:

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "The New York Times looks at the delegate math more broadly, and sees what we've known for a while: Hillary Clinton has lost. [...] In two months, she's lost two superdelegates while Obama has gained 69. But two more months is going to turn the math around for her? This thing is over. All that's left is for her to admit that."
• Ezra Klein: "Since February 5th, Barack Obama has gained 69 superdelegates, while Clinton has lost two. And that's continued throughout some big losses and big hits for Obama. Which means it's not only that the math looks increasingly hard for Clinton. It's that the conceivable events that could reverse Obama's momentum aren't substantially impacting elites -- his lead has cemented enough that elite movement has overwhelmingly favored his campaign. Obama could, of course, be caught in bed with a live Arab or a dead Weatherman, but barring that sort of total implosion, it's very, very hard to figure out what could save Clinton's chances."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It is over...Seriously, enough with the endless Clinton campaign drama. Let's move this along and start the battle with [John] McCain."

DEM FIELD II: What Went Wrong?

Mark Penn's resignation from the position of Clinton's chief strategist has prompted several liberal bloggers to analyze what went wrong with Clinton's campaign:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In one sense, a candidate should always be judged by their campaign, even in cases where a good deal is delegated. It's a good way of judging their ability to evaluate people, hold people accountable, etc. And in the final analysis the buck stops with them. It's their campaign. [...] The Penn problem went right to the top."
• Atrios: "There are definitely ways that the Clinton campaign has annoyed me, but the 'win Super Tuesday and it's over' strategy really was a pretty good one and it almost worked. Politics is binary and there's big tendency to overstate the genius of the winners and lament the bumbling of the losers. [...] Where they seemingly went wrong was remaining wedded to the momentum strategy even after they had lost the momentum. Whether this was just stupidity or largely due to money issues I don't know, but not competing in a bunch of states let Obama get a bunch of big wins while she had been getting much smaller wins."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "You can't talk about flaws in Hillary Clinton's campaign without mentioning the collapse in her support among African-American women. Clinton started the campaign very well-regarded in the black community and doing extremely well among black women but eventually lost the vast majority of that support. In retrospect, the collapse of Clinton's black support sometimes feels obvious, but if you'd predicted in advance that white women would back Hillary, black men would back Obama, and they'd both split white men and black women and then Clinton would win because there are many more white women than black men in the electorate I think people would have considered that a reasonable-if-crude assessment of the situation."

DEM FIELD III: The Real Meaning Of Penn's Fall

Conservative bloggers see Penn's exit as further evidence of the Dems' opposition to free trade:

• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "My pal Jerry Bowyer e-mailed me this morning with the following thought on Clinton bigwig Mark Penn: Free trade among Democrats is so completely dead in the water that any Democratic advisor favoring free trade is subject to the death penalty. [...] The union stranglehold over Democrats this election year is really the big news...The message is to raise taxes, end free trade, and promote the union agenda at every turn. That's the official Democratic mantra for 2008."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Hillary Clinton has jettisoned campaign adviser Mark Penn because it came out that his PR firm was working on behalf of the government of Colombia in support of the pending trade treaty between the U.S. and that country. Clinton is afraid that she might not look as anti-trade as Barack Obama; both candidates are vociferously opposed to the trade deal with Colombia. [...] Running in the Democratic primaries, Clinton and Obama are appealing to the least well-informed, least sophisticated element of America's electorate. Sadly, instead of trying to lead on the issue of free trade, as Bill Clinton once did, to his credit, Hillary and Obama have chosen to pander to their voters' biases."
• Jay Reding: "The Democratic Party has developed a knee-jerk reaction to anything that resembles free trade -- and for a party that claims the 'progressive' mantle that sort of isolationism is a throwback to the days of nativist protectionism."

DEM FIELD IV: You Say You Want A Resolution?

Open Left's Chris Bowers examines the road ahead: "I agree with Markos that the outcome of the nomination campaign is no longer in doubt. [...] However, what is in doubt is when the nomination campaign will end in the mind of the electorate and the media. At what point does it become common wisdom that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee? [...] Two key elements are needed to end the nomination campaign in a way that brings closure:

• The campaign cannot end after a Clinton victory...On an emotional level, it is far more difficult to accept your favorite candidate withdrawing from the campaign after s/he wins an election than after s/he loses an election. As such, if we want to achieve closure, we cannot expect, or really even ask, for Clinton to drop out of the campaign following a primary state victory. [...]
• The campaign can end when Obama reaches a delegate milestone...The three milestones are 1,627 pledged delegates (which Obama is guaranteed to achieve on or before May 20th), 2,024 total delegates outside of Florida and Michigan (which will allow Obama to dictate the terms of Michigan and Florida, and which Obama is on pace to achieve sometime in early June) or 2,208 delegates (which no one is on pace to achieve until some sort of deal is reached on Florida and Michigan). [...]

Now, given that this is the most hotly contested nomination contest since the 1912 Republican presidential nomination, it is more than likely that both of these conditions need to be met in order to achieve real closure for the party...However, since an Obama win in Pennsylvania is unlikely, since Clinton can still look forward to West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico even if she is swept on May 6th, and since Obama will not reach the first milestone until (probably) May 20th, it actually seems unlikely that we can meet both conditions before June 3rd. Still, if, in the first week of June, Obama can win both South Dakota and Montana (probable), and if he can reach 2,024 by June 7th (again, probable), that might just do the trick. At that point, Clinton could conceivably leave the campaign on Monday, June 9th, with even her closest supporters feeling as though all chances are lost."

Bowers also pushes back against Moulitsas' argument that superdelegates should end the race: "It may not be popular to say this, but not only does it seem likely that Clinton will not drop out before June 3rd, but it also doesn't seem like a good idea for her to do so. Achieving the sort of closure necessary for a healed, unified party for the general election will require Clinton supporters feeling as though they were allowed to fight until there were no more realistic options remaining. I firmly believe that healing and unifying the party will be quicker and easier if the campaign comes to a slow, gradual conclusion rather than a quick knockout on either April 22nd or May 6th, or a massive superdelegate swing sometime later in May."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat critiques Bowers' post and repeats his call for revotes in MI and FL: "Chris Bowers joins the Obama supporter chorus -- the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee is a certainty. (I also believe this to be so, but I have a bit more humility than to assume my believing something makes it so.) But like Meteor Blades and Markos before him, Bowers does not make the logical leap -- that since Obama will be the nominee, he must and should start thinking about November and move to unify the Party and to secure his being viewed as the legitimate nominee by the near half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. As I wrote yesterday, the most important thing Obama must do is accept a valid result, preferably through revotes, in Florida and Michigan. Until I read anything from these 'not in doubt' Obama supporters, like Bowers, Kos and MB, urging Obama to act on Florida and Michigan, and to act to unify the Party, it seems to me they are acting as if the contest is actually in doubt."

CLINTON: (Mostly) Vindicated

After criticizing Clinton when it appeared that her OH hospital story was false, liberal bloggers are now acknowledging that Clinton's story contained more truth than previously thought:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole offers a mea culpa: "Looks like Hillary did in fact get a raw deal on the hospital story from the media and from bloggers (me included ). [...] This is not the same as the Tuzla nonsense, and I jumped the gun."
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades defends Clinton against accusations that she lied: "One can argue that politicians on the campaign trail should be a lot more careful in vetting the stories of real-life people they choose to offer as examples of how their political agenda is in tune with Americans' real needs. Or, that they should just say that somebody told them this story instead of implying that they got the information firsthand. But passing along a possibly mistaken story someone tells in good faith is a far cry from lying."
• Digby: "I suspect this particular 'gotcha' is being done to degrade the argument against universal health care as much as to embarrass Senator Clinton. The Clinton Rules state that if any part of a story is proven true, the entire story is true. The corollary is that if any part of a story about a Republican is proved to be false then the entire story is false. The same concept is at work with health care here. If any detail about bad health care in the US can be shown as false, then notions that our health care system is screwed up are also false."

Big Tent Democrat (again) accuses liberal bloggers of anti-Clinton bias: "The story told to Hillary Clinton by Ohio Deputy Sheriff Brian Holman did not implicate the hospital that decided to inject itself into the story. It told a story, a real story, about our health care crisis. But since some Obama blogs were more intent on demonizing Hillary Clinton than shining light on the health care issue, this important story was buried under an avalanche of Hillary Hate. Shame on them. This is the worst manifestation I have yet seen of the sickness that has infected the Left blogs."

CLINTON II: The VRWC Shows Hillary Some Love

Conservative bloggers are praising Clinton for calling on President George W. Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the '08 Olympics:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "This strikes me, aside from the argument's merits, as just plain smart politics. It shifts the focus off Penn-gate. It sounds a note simultaneously likely to appeal to those on the Right (who like standing up to dictators) and Left (who want more attention to human rights). She was first of the candidates to speak up on this issue and now looks bolder than her opponents. If this is a sign of the post-Penn Hillary, things may be looking up."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Agreeing with Hillary...It happens every so often. [...] An all out boycott of the Olympics wouldn't be fair to the athletes who worked so hard to get to this point, so let them compete. But were President Bush himself to boycott the games, it would make an important statement on human rights."
• see-dubya: "Hillary wants Bush to boycott the Olympic opening ceremonies? Yeah, stopped clock, twice a day. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of siding with both Hillary and...gasp...[Nancy] Pelosi over W. (Ouch!) But in addition to its repression of Tibetan activists, and its crackdown on dissent in the media (both of which I wrote about here) China is also subsidizing violence in Darfur."

Hot Air's Allahpundit, on the other hand, opposes the boycott: "[This is] a perfect microcosm of Clintonian 'pragmatism,' avoiding the hard option (a total boycott) for a half-hearted symbolic gesture that achieves little beyond cheap antagonism. See also the Clinton administration's response to the embassy bombings. [...] We have our foreign-policy plate full at the moment with jihadists of various stripes and should do what we can in the meantime to avoid problems with China by maintaining decent diplomatic relations. If you disagree, explain why boycotting the opening ceremony is appropriate but not the entire Games. Granted, you'd be killing the dreams of a few hundred American Olympians by going the latter route, but if you're serious about protesting human rights abuses, that's a small price to pay."

OBAMA: Back In The Crosshairs

It appears that conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts that Obama will probably be the Dem nominee, as they are once again targeting the IL senator:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Obama has no experience on which to judge him. We must instead look to his judgment. In Obama's judgment, it was just fine to befriend a terrorist leader of the Weather Underground and have Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright as his pastor. Let's also not forget the Communist Harpy he married who only decided she was proud of her country when her husband decided to run for POTUS. This man has a tendency to surround himself with people who loath this country and the only positions on which he is firm are the one's about which he is lying."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Personal attacks, half-truths, flip-flopping and evasions...yeah, we've seen this movie before. When he first appeared on the national scene, Obama seemed like a fundamentally decent fellow, but recent evidence suggests he's not who we thought he was."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's overwhelmingly likely that deep-down Obama is a solid leftist. That's how he was raised and educated, and that's where he started on the war, gun control, and a host of other issues. How else, for that matter, could Rev. Wright's black liberation theology have appealed to him?...[As President,] he'll be triangulating with semi-pacifists who, while they may not want to 'damn' America, almost invariably blame it first."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau gently critiques our 4/4 edition and elaborates on her views about Obama's patriotism: "For my own part, I'm not questioning Barack's patriotism -- nothing he has said or done would suggest to me that he himself doesn't love his country (I freely admit that I'm not equipped to discern what he feels in his heart of hearts, and I'm glad to take his word for how he feels about America). What I do question -- and not just about Barack, but about much of the left generally -- is the way they manifest their patriotism. [...] Certainly, everyone has a right to criticize and dissent...gotta love that First Amendment! But I simply dispute the notion that, as a general matter, dissent is necessarily the highest expression of patriotism."

Other conservative bloggers are