April 25, 2008

4/25: Who You Callin' Unelectable?

As The Huffington Post's David Edsall notes, the media is increasingly pressing Hillary Clinton's message that Barack Obama has "potentially fatal flaws" that could doom him in the general election. The netroots are aware of this trend and are fighting back fiercely. Liberal bloggers are blasting the Clinton camp's arguments as intellectually dishonest while arguing that, on the contrary, Obama is more electable than Clinton. In addition, Markos Moulitsas is claiming that Dem Senate candidates will benefit from having Obama at the top of the ticket, noting that the IL senator currently polls better than Clinton in many of the states with competitive Senate races (such as VA, CO, and MN).

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are criticizing John McCain for calling NC GOP officials "out of touch" after they refused to pull their controversial anti-Obama ad. McCain's willingness to chastise other Republicans reminds many bloggers why they don't trust the AZ senator. Michelle Malkin complains: "Has [McCain] ever attacked Jeremiah Wright this way? No. Never. That is the McCain way."

DEM FIELD: The Netroots Defend Their Guy

The Huffington Post's Edsall examines how the media has embraced the Clinton camp's argument about Obama's electability problems: "In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks. The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times. For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown. Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws. For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal."

Undoubtedly aware of this shift in media coverage, liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against the Clinton camp's electability arguments:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can't Hillary beat him? Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don't insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday? [...] If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?"
• Moulitsas links to Cole's post and responds: "Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee."
• In a later post, Moulitsas writes: "The Clintons [once] insisted that this election would be decided by the delegate count. [...] [In Feb., Clinton strategist Howard] Wolfson said it was 'obvious' that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the 'popular vote', and about 'electability', and about IF, IF, and IF. [...] Note how the Obama campaign never disparaged the system or the role of the delegates while they trailed in those metrics. They knew the rules of the game, and decided to operate within their confines. They have never attempted to rewrite them for their own benefit. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, appears to have as much respect for the rules (and reality, for that matter) as the [George W.] Bush administration they are seeking to replace."
• AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner: "I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DHinMI ridicules the "Clinton campaign logic": "Barack Obama can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Hillary Clinton didn't really prefer Clinton, they opposed Barack Obama. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Obama, like single women and members of AFSCME, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November. [...] Hillary Clinton can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Barack Obama didn't simply prefer Obama, they opposed Clinton. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Clinton, like people for whom the Iraq war is the most important issue or members of SEIU, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November. And while we're at it, we should point out that John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mike Huckabee among conservative evangelical Christian voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win conservative evangelical Christian voters. [...] Gee, if you follow through on the logic of the Clinton campaign, nobody will win in November."

DEM FIELD II: Markos Vs. Jerome

Prominent liberal bloggers (and longtime friends) Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong are continuing their ongoing electability debate (which we discussed yesterday). First, Moulitsas makes the electability case for Obama: "[Obama] runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton. If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the [John] Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many 'Red' states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters. Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters."

Jerome Armstrong responds: "[Obama is] an un-tested gamble. There is no doubt that Clinton's electability has issues, but to highlight those, while claiming Obama is unassailable in his electability, can only happen if one ignores reality. The problem with this type of Obama supporter, is that they still live in a pre-Wright bubble, in their estimation of an Obama GE candidacy. They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That's not the Obama of late April. Neither is Clinton going to move us beyond a battleground strategy. They both have very different states where they are strong, and likewise where they are weaker than the other."

Armstrong continues: "Overall, Florida's 27 delegates, added with Ohio's 20 and Arkansas 6 equals 53 EV's is states that Clinton could win today, but Obama will start off behind. Clinton puts in play an additional 24 EV's that are currently out of reach by Obama. And McCain has 27 EV's in play against Obama that he doesn't against Clinton. Those are pretty significant numbers in Clinton's column, and they add up to a EV lead today of 284 - 244 over McCain. You could quibble about the categories, neverminding that alot of those state polls in non-battleground states are reflective of February, or earlier, results. Or, you could take a dose of reality and realize that either Clinton or Obama would have a tough map against McCain, doable but battling -- and foolish to claim otherwise."

Moulitsas is unpersuaded: "Obama has a higher ceiling, he wins states like Minnesota (and Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, and so on) more easily than Clinton. If 'electability' is the measure by which the supers should decide, the numbers are fairly clear. Having better numbers in Florida does Clinton little good if McCain threatens to take away Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Those three states have 37 EVs, to Florida's 27."

CLINTON: It's A Love/Hate Thing

Conservative bloggers have had a unique relationship with Clinton in this Dem primary. Many of them are actively rooting for the NY senator while simultaneously criticizing her motives and character:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Although I'm supporting John McCain for President in 2008, I have to admit that I'd rather see Hillary Clinton as his opponent. That's not because I think she'd be a weaker candidate; it's because I'd love to see that smug tin god, Barack Obama, humbled and forced to taste bitter defeat at Hillary's hands. Ironically, just a few months ago, I would loved to have seen Hillary beaten by Barack because she seemed to have such a sense of entitlement about the Democratic nomination. So now, the shoe is completely on the other foot. Come to think of it, that may be Barack Obama's only significant accomplishment: he has been the first Democrat who has ever made conservatives see any good at all in Hillary Clinton."
• RedState's Moe Lane explains why GOPers trust Clinton more than Obama: "Why it is that we go after Obama hammer and tongs on [national security] issues but largely give Clinton a pass[?] It's actually very simple: we don't believe a word she says on the issue, which makes her more reliable. [...] Senator Clinton is trying to get elected, and she's been trimming on this issue from Day One. She's stuck in a Party that dislikes national security policy questions...so she's been stuck with pandering to them. [...] We don't believe that she actually has a principled stance on the subject, which means (paradoxically) that she's not going to either ignore objective reality if she gets in the Oval Office, or let her past utterances adversely affect her in any way, shape, or form. And Clinton certainly won't take any risks on this. At all. We can work with that. As for Senator Obama...well, the only thing that he has been clear and unambiguous about is his opposition to the war -- which, by the way, is going fairly well at the moment -- and we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. When he says he'd have us bug out of Iraq, the only thing that any reasonably objective observer can conclude is that he means it."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The LA Times notes that Hillary Clinton's promise to 'obliterate' Iran if it attacked Israel is ruffling feathers around the world. What was striking to me about Clinton's comments were how she has abandoned the cautious tone that she employed last year when she was considered inevitable. In the AFL-CIO debate held in Chicago last August, then-frontrunner Clinton was asked to respond to Barack Obama's comments about acting on actionable itellegence of Al Qaeda operatives being in Pakistan. 'Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals,' she remarked. [...] There's been a lot of Clinton love among conservatives over the past several weeks, because she has been weakening Obama and attacking him from the right. But we should never lose sight of how adaptable Clinton is, and how she will literally say whatever suits her purposes at a given moment."
• The Weekly Standard's Richelieu: "If the GOP has a large Bronze medal of distinction, we should cast one at once and gleefully award it to Mrs. Clinton for her meritorious service to our cause. [...] A long and damaging Democratic primary [is] pitting one vital part of its base in deadly combat against another and continuing that fight long beyond a sensible conclusion. Mrs. Clinton's hand alone is on this throttle of Democratic fratricide and she appears to be accelerating the engine of Democrat destruction rather than easing it back. [...] Anyone who once had doubts about Mrs. Clinton's loyalty to the interests of the Democratic party instead of to her own ambition now has their answer."

MCCAIN: We Have An Elitist In Our Midst!

For the first time in months, McCain is taking sustained criticism from conservative bloggers for his response to the NC GOP's controversial anti-Obama ad. Bloggers are particularly critical of McCain for making the following remarks about NC GOP officials after they refused to pull the ad:

"'They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable,' McCain told NBC's 'Today' Show."

• Michelle Malkin: "McCain attacks the NC GOP as 'out of touch with reality'. Has he ever attacked Jeremiah Wright this way? No. Never. That is the McCain way. Who is out of touch with reality? Pot meet kettle. As I pointed out last week, Obama isn't the only snob in the race."
• Philip Klein: "[McCain is] reminding a lot of conservatives why they can't stand him. [...] I've watched the ad five times now, and I still can't see what's so unacceptable about it. McCain has now declared it beyond the pale for Republicans to criticize Barack Obama for his close spiritual and personal relationship with a vile, American hating, pastor."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I gave John McCain political points for asking the NC GOP to take down that ad. But now, he seems to have ratcheted up his rhetoric. [...] This, of course, raises some questions. For one, is referring to the North Carolina Republican Party as 'out of touch' an elitist statement? Is this his version of 'small town voters'?...No doubt, it's easier to criticize a Republican Party than it is to criticize voters, but is there a thought that these are yokels down there who 'didn't get the memo?' [...] Lastly, by attacking the ad so vehemently, is McCain saying that Rev. Wright is 'off the table' as a political issue in the fall?"
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[This is] just McCain being McCain and he's gotta hope Republicans want to stop the Dem enough to get out and vote for him. (I think they will.) But I don't this will be the only time he criticizes Republicans just out of habit."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain in a blogger call today repeatedly said he thought the ad was 'not appropriate' and did not reflect the 'tenor of the campaign we want to run.' But by indicating that he thought Americans were entitled to consider any issue they wished, he left the issue muddled: what's wrong with him talking about Wright? And why condemn those who do?"

NRO's Jim Geraghty, on the other hand, thinks there is a "method to McCain's no-negative messages madness": "McCain is already competing for the voters in the center, while Obama and Clinton are still competing for the votes of the party's liberal wing. An element of this strategy, by the way, includes McCain sometimes taking shots at his own party, often in ways that will make conservatives grumble. See today's criticism of Bush's handling of Katrina, or his criticism of the North Carolina GOP commercial featuring Jeremiah Wright, or his criticism of Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham for calling Obama by his full name. [...Obama] says he's going to unite the country, and is running on hope, but when his surrogates try to kneecap an opponent, we get these milquetoast disapproving statements from press aides. But when somebody on McCain's team does something that's even remotely controversial, the senator denounces it in front of the cameras. One guy walks the walk, the other guy just talks the talk. And the frustrated independents, exhausted from nasty politics, will notice this."

MCCAIN II: Memo To Broder: McCain's A Politician

Liberal bloggers are criticizing The Washington Post's David Broder for writing, "In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Broder didn't say who makes this assumption about McCain's integrity, which is odd, because I can think of all kinds of examples of McCain 'sacrificing personal credibility to prevail' politically. Perhaps Broder could take a look at that flip-flop list I put together (and continue to update thanks to McCain's penchant for changing directions). In nearly every instance, McCain abandoned a more moderate position for a far more conservative one, and in each case, it was a transparent effort to curry favor with the Republican Party's far-right base in order to help him with the GOP presidential nomination."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Just look at Steve Benen's list of the issues on which McCain has changed his positions, and note how many of those changes occurred when he was preparing to run for President, or during his run when his original position turned out to be unpopular. And it's not as though the list is composed of minor details. It includes things McCain has previously taken to be among his signature issues: things like balancing the budget and being a Republican. My personal favorite, though, is still the loan McCain took out to bail out his campaign -- the one in which he gave up his legal right to decide for himself whether or not to stay in the Presidential race, and pledged to pretend to be a candidate for long enough to get taxpayer matching funds to pay off his loan. Deciding whether or not that's a violation of campaign finance laws is above my pay grade, but it certainly violates their spirit."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I'll give Broder credit for one thing: he's right about McCain's straight-talkiness being generally 'assumed.' And look -- it's not as if the only way to fight this legend is by pretending that the polar opposite is true instead. McCain is hardly the most devious politician ever to take the national stage. But there's plenty of evidence that his MO is to get outsized credit for a very small number of mavericky stands while spending about 98% of his political life doing all the usual things that career politicians do. He hangs with lobbyists, he does favors for big contributors, he waffles on positions that might hurt him, he panders to constituencies whose votes he needs, and he very rarely takes a politically risky stand on anything. In other words, he's just a normal pol with a really good PR shop."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Raised Stakes

NRO's Mark Steyn explains why "the stakes are greater on the Democrat side" in '08:

What's the worst that could happen to the Republicans this fall?
McCain loses, there's some further attrition in the House and Senate. In other words, just more of the genteel decline of a listless GOP that seems all out of ideological gas.

What's the best that could happen?

McCain wins, the attrition in the House and Senate is modestly reversed. A maverick president gets to enact big bipartisan "reforms" with a Democrat Congress. GOP continues to decline.

What's the best that could happen to the Democrats?

Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms.

What's the worst?

Hillary manages to deny him the nomination, or he gets it but loses on a McGovernite scale. Traumatic meltdown, bitterness, civil war in the party, etc, leading perhaps to the sundering of key elements of the Dem coalition.

LEST WE FORGET: What My Dad Is Talking About When He Yells "That's What I'm Talking 'Bout"

By McSweeney's' Julia McCloy:

• a seamless reverse layup
• a quick turnaround jumpshot
• three points from downtown
• the effeminate way my brother sticks his pinkie out when downing a Schlitz

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 25, 2008 12:37 PM