April 01, 2008

4/1: The Neverending Story

The slow but steady trickle of superdelegates declaring for Barack Obama has convinced many prominent liberal bloggers that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the Dem nod are fading. In spite of (or perhaps because of) Clinton's lengthening odds, the netroots are increasingly expressing concerns that Clinton's candidacy will damage Obama and/or the Dem party. In some of his sharpest criticism yet, Josh Marshall accuses Clinton of "running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself." Meanwhile, Markos Moulitsas repeats his warning that "the only way for Clinton to win this race is via coup by super delegate, which would throw the party into civil war." While Clinton certainly has her diehard netroots supporters, it's clear that the majority of liberal bloggers are more than ready for this primary to end.

CLINTON: Overstaying Her Welcome?

The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow unloads on Clinton: "[Clinton] has exercised the 'nuclear option': She's saying that a process that isn't retrofitted to maximize her chances isn't valid or legitimate. She even invites the Republicans to make ads around that theme. And her refrain that 'we' must 'count the votes' is specifically designed to evoke memories of the stolen 2000 election, a sore subject that is likely to alienate Florida voters in November. [...] She really only has -- or had -- one valid reason to stay in the race: To be the solid, reliable alternative should scandal or missteps seriously threaten Obama's viability in November. The problem is, she's made so many missteps of her own that she's no longer a good alternative should the front-runner stumble. She undercuts her own arguments that the race should go on by behaving in a reckless fashion that wounds the party itself."

Josh Marshall clarifies his views on Clinton's candidacy: "When people have asked me whether I think Hillary should drop out I've said I don't think she's under any obligation to do so but that I do think, with her odds now this long, she should not be running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself."

Marshall continues: "We have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president. [...] Without making real progress on one of those fronts, the premise of the candidacy just becomes too difficult to sustain. And when that fails just throw up lots of nonsense about the popular vote in primary states or blue states or significant states, or whatever. I think there are a lot of people who would actually like to see the race play out as long as neither candidate is going out of their way to make their opponent unviable in the general. But thinking over what I've said above, I'm just not sure how realistic that is."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat mocks Marshall's post: "As part of our continuing TPM Watch, now Josh Marshall denies he wants Clinton out of the race. We laugh. For the record, I think Clinton should probably drop out of the race after May 6 if things go badly for her. But I am not going to mount a negative campaign against her if she does not."

CLINTON II: Superdelegates Won't Save You Now

Liberal bloggers think that it's increasingly unlikely that superdelegates will move en masse toward Clinton:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is starting to seem increasingly likely that Obama will not lose superdelegates [by] any substantial margin, if indeed he loses them at all. I have talked to a few publicly undecided superdelegates over the past week, and the range was anywhere from leaning Obama but waiting, to in favor of Obama but not ready to go public yet. [...] There is an outside chance that a big Clinton win in Pennsylvania might upset the campaign a bit. Still, I expect that Obama will equal Clinton in superdelegates by the week following the North Carolina primary, and that Clinton will not gain any ground in terms of pledged delegates during the April 22nd-May 6th period. Given that Obama will also reach 1,627 pledged delegates on May 20th, I am starting to believe that the campaign will end in either May or June. Clinton can continue on to the convention if she likes, but when Obama reaches 1,627 and equals Clinton's in superdelegates, few people will continue to take her campaign seriously. Hopefully, it won't end in a blaze of self-destructive sour grapes."
• TAPPED's Mark Schmitt: "All this talk about what the superdelegates 'ought' to do is a distraction, part of the 'fog of nonsense,' to use Josh Marshall's phrase, that is keeping the illusion of a Clinton candidacy alive. The relevant question was always what they will do, and there was never a reason to think that they had any pressing desire to overturn the will of the pledged delegates. [...] The movement of the superdelegates as a bloc in the direction of Clinton was always unlikely; the qualms expressed by even strong Clinton supporters like [ex-DNC Chair Joe] Andrew make it impossible."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The general trend of superdelegates seems tilted in Obama's direction. [...] A senator here and a House member there might not seem like much, but they add up, and if the superdelegates begin to break [toward Obama] in large numbers, the writing on the wall will be impossible to ignore."

CLINTON III: Rendell In The Crosshairs

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing Clinton supporter/PA Gov. Ed Rendell for calling Fox News "the most objective" cable network:

"I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present -- FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, I'm only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right."

• Benen: "For any real Democrat, especially a former chairman of the DNC, to go on Fox News and praise the network's coverage is both foolish and frustrating."


• Ron Chusid: "Fox has done the fairest job? From the perspective of the Clinton campaign that is not an unexpected claim. After all, Fox does devote quite a lot of time making up things about Barack Obama -- just like the Clinton campaign does."

Pro-Clinton bloggers are defending Rendell and Fox News:

• Taylor Marsh: "Ed Rendell is correct about Fox. [...] The traditional media and the Obama blogs are stacking the deck against Clinton. At least with Fox you get fairness for the time being, though no one should think that [John] McCain will take second come the fall."
• Big Tent Democrat: "The Obama network and Obama blogs are no doubt upset that Ed Rendell told the truth. [...] Hilarious that Josh Marshall takes offense. He is a NBC clone."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas is criticizing Rendell for another statement he made:

"'Just flip it for a second,' Mr. Rendell said. 'Let's say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They'd be saying you're being racist, you're being everything in the world. It's nuts! It's nuts!'"

• Moulitsas: "Actually, it's not one percent. I love how Clinton's surrogates continue to lie about the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida. My kid's preschool cast ballots too, and Obama won. Should we count those votes as well? But aside from that, I'd be saying the exact same thing I'm saying now, I'd just swap out Clinton's name for Obama. As for the media, they would've long-ago given up on her challengers. The only reason she's still in this race is because she's a Clinton. I don't begrudge her that advantage, but it's the reality of the matter. If [John] Edwards was in Clinton's position, or [Bill] Richardson, or anyone else, this thing would've been long gone after Clinton's February losing streak. The math is clear: the only way for Clinton to win this race is via coup by super delegate, which would throw the party into civil war. Clinton knows this, of course, and doesn't care. In fact, she's hoping for it. It's her best-case scenario."

OBAMA: Busted!

Conservative bloggers are discussing Kenneth P. Vogel's Politico article indicating that Obama had "a greater role" in filling out a '96 survey about his political views than his campaign had previously admitted:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Once again, we have more evidence that Obama represents nothing more than the political winds. He has zero credibility, zero experience, and a penchant for telling people what they want to hear rather than any truth about what he actually believes. Either he lied to [Independent Voters of Illinois] or he's lying now. In either case, it's hardly the New Politics Obama has promised."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I really don't mind if politicians have a philosophical worldview that is different from mine. That's to be expected -- there is diversity in thought, after all. But for Heaven's sake, don't try to disguise matters [...] These kinds of stories only serve to make Republicans think that Obama believes there is something in his record that should be hidden. And it enrages Democrats too, because they believe Obama wants to run away from any hint of liberalism in his record."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama was hard left [in '96], has been hard left in the U.S. Senate, and if elected president, will be the hardest left president by far in our history."

OBAMA II: Stepping Into The Culture Wars

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the following quote from Obama, in which the IL senator explains why he supports comprehensive sex education:

"'Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old,' Obama said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.'"

• CBN's David Brody: "I understand Obama was talking off the cuff and these were not prepared remarks. [...] But still. 'Punished with a baby?' That just doesn't sound right. Why use the word punished? I would think that word would be alarming to people and possibly offensive to those who have had babies out of wedlock."


• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Is this simply inartful phrasing -- or is it the kind of remark that inadvertently reveals the mindset of many of those who are, like Barack, at the extreme of the pro-choice movement, where a baby is less a life that's worthy of respect and protection than it is simply an undeserved 'punishment' for those who've engaged in ill-advised sexual activity?"


• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Obama doesn't want girls to be responsible."


• Morrissey offers a personal anecdote: "My son & daughter-in-law had our granddaughter, the Little Admiral, when they were 18 years old. None of us ever saw her as a 'punishment', not from God or hormones or the universe in general. While we would obviously have preferred that Mom and Dad had a little more preparation for life, we never thought of the new addition as anything other than a blessing. How so? We saw our son blossom almost overnight into manhood. He threw himself into his new family. [...] It's amazing to see what people can do when they accept blessings in their lives rather than treat new life as a 'punishment'."

MCCAIN: Rescued By Bloggers?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article, in which Dinan asserts that "McCain's blogger outreach, the most extensive of any presidential campaign in either party, helped keep him afloat in the dark days last summer when the major press was sizing up his campaign grave."

• RedState's Neil Stevens: "John McCain did what we all talked about Fred Thompson doing, and what the hot names on the left are best known for. He reached out to us, made us an important part of his strategy, and gave us access. We in turn gave him a fair shot, and he did not waste it. The idea that McCain's strength is directly with the base, rather than with the press, runs directly counter to his reputation, but everything [McCain blogger Patrick] Hynes and Dinan say here, I can vouch for firsthand. I myself participated in one of the McCain calls. Listening to him did lead me to re-evaluate him and drop my opposition to his candidacy."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As the Times notes, McCain's outreach to the bloggers has been effective because it featured McCain himself conducting frequent conference calls which he has opened up to questions. We've reported on a number of them. To me, the most significant thing about our contacts with McCain has not been the elucidation of his policy positions, although the calls have been a reminder that McCain is, by any reasonable definition, a conservative. What has been most effective is the candidate himself: his humor, his evident sincerity, especially when talking about security issues, and the frankness of our exchanges with him."
• Morrissey: "The blog outreach did two important things for McCain. It forced the media to start asking him questions on issues again after it became clear that the blogosphere had begun getting better quotes than they got. It also gave McCain some wind in his sails, allowing him to have fun again in his campaign. [...] That all started with the candidate, though. McCain decided to survive the summer breakdown, and so he did. [...] That's the real story of McCain's political survival in 2007 -- and the bloggers had a front-row seat for it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Lieberman Democrats

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat examines CT Sen. Joe Lieberman's complaint that "the Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000...It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party":

"Lieberman is factually correct: The Democratic Party has shifted leftward over the last decade [...] The only truly questionable portion of Lieberman's remarks is his suggestion that the change agents responsible for the Democratic Party's progressive turn represent 'a small group on the left of the party.' It's too soon to tell if the the new-model Democrats are headed for a long-term majority or just a short-term, post-[George W.] Bush bounce, and maybe Lieberman's right that the the Dems' leftward shift will eventually drive the party into a political ditch. But given how the landscape looks right now, Lieberman sounds an awful lot like the Rockefeller Republicans of yore, who would complain about how a 'small group of extremists' in the conservative movement were hijacking their party and dooming it to defeat, even as those same extremists were leading the GOP to national successes that the Jacob Javitses and Christine Todd Whitmans and Lowell Weickers could only dream about."

LEST WE FORGET: For All Of You Hills Fans...

Radar's Neel Shah updates his "patented Hills Drinking Game":

"Drink whenever:

• Whitney mentions that she's just working in fashion PR so can eventually pursue her life-long dream of becoming a stylist.


• Either Whitney or Audrina remind Lauren that Brody Jenner has this hot new girlfriend.


• Spencer makes a calculated attempt to win back Heidi. (Drink twice if a shouting match ensues.)


• Heidi counters by saying that she just needs 'space.'


• Stephanie Pratt makes a friendly overture towards Audrina despite her brother's requests to the contrary, perhaps because before all is said and done she might show herself to be the most manipulative character on the entire show."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 1, 2008 12:49 PM