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 April 10, 2008 12:30 PM