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 April 22, 2008 12:51 PM