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 April 21, 2008 12:50 PM