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 April 11, 2008 12:54 PM