April 03, 2008

4/3: Baby, It's 3 AM, Hillary Must Be Lonely

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Hillary Clinton's latest "3 A.M." ad criticizes John McCain instead of Barack Obama. The netroots are tired of the Democratic infighting and want the two candidates to begin defining McCain, especially since the GOP nominee has been getting a "free ride" (in their view) from the national press. Liberal bloggers also think that attacking McCain is good for the Dem contest, since superdelegates want to see which candidate will run better against McCain in the fall.

Conservative bloggers, naturally, were unimpressed by Clinton's ad. However, it does appear that Clinton is beginning to get their attention. After spending most of the past month ignoring Clinton and targeting Obama, righty bloggers have started hitting Clinton more often, accusing her of lying and mocking the state of her campaign.

DEM FIELD: Give Me Revotes Or Give Me Death

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat continues to push for revotes in FL and MI: "Let me say this, that if Obama and the Democratic Party force themselves to exclude Florida and Michigan from the Democratic Convention, [...] kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye for November. Chalk up 44 electoral votes for John McCain right now. There is STILL time to fix this -- with party run revotes."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doesn't buy this argument: "I've heard this before, and obviously it's central to the notion that we have to do something about Michigan and Florida. But is it really true? [...] Is there really a sizable pool of Democrats in either state who are both (a) so committed to the party that they care about stuff like this and (b) so uncommitted to the party that they're willing to either stay home or vote for John McCain in November? Or is the argument that activists will be so pissed off that they'll refuse to man phone banks and knock on doors, thus scuttling Clinton/Obama's ground game? I'm not sure I get the logic here."

Meanwhile, many liberal bloggers think Clinton only cares about seating FL's and MI's delegates because she thinks it will help her win the nomination:

• Ezra Klein: "[This] would be the same Hillary Clinton who employs Harold Ickes, one of the DNC members who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. The same Hillary Clinton who could've stopped this plan when it was first announced, but only discovered this fervor for democracy when it became electorally convenient. And so, now that she needs something to distract everyone from the fact that Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania and is showing momentum among superdelegates, she's promising to make the convention a war. It's the electoral equivalent of 'if I can't have you, no one can.' Blech."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Not too long ago, Hillary Clinton was quite prepared for the process to end without most states having voted. [...] She said it would be over February 5th -- and seemed quite pleased with that prospect. What a difference a couple months makes. Jed, of course, has the video."

DEM FIELD II: Dissecting Those Demographics

TPM's Josh Marshall is confused: "Since I think the [Jeremiah] Wright thing is a real liability for Obama (for many reasons, not least of which is the way it simply reinforces the race issue), I would expect that the pols [susceptible] to the [Harold] Ickes argument would be folks from red and purple states. And yet my impression is that that's not what's happening. If anything, just the opposite. Since January Obama has been able to score endorsements that really don't square with the idea that he's a loser in the general or someone who'd hurt Dems down ticket. The names I think of are Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Lee Hamilton, etc. [...] So why is it the Democrats from the reddest states and many from purple states seem to go for Obama over Hillary Clinton? If nothing else it seems to me that these people are voting with their feet on Ickes argument and they're not convinced."

Atrios responds: "To answer Josh's question, and echoing a discussion I was having with BooMan yesterday, there are parts of the country where everybody truly hates Hillary Clinton, where late 90s era Freeper mentality governs. Democrats may not feel that way, but they're pretty few and far between."

In a later post, Marshall speculates: "Perhaps the pattern is that Obama does well in states with large black populations (at least in terms of primaries) and states with very small black populations. The problem is in states with substantial but not particularly large African-American populations in which you have a deep-seated and pre-existing racial politics that ends up playing in Clinton's favor. This, if the theory is right, would explain why Obama does well in the Mountain West and the South but has a harder time in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. I think this is part of an explanation. But...how, for instance, does it account for Obama's victories in Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut among other states?"

• Big Tent Democrat responds: "Marshall confuses two issues. The number of African-Americans in a state can be dispositive for Obama -- as he will carry at least 80% of the vote in almost every state. In Mississippi, that translated into a big win. In Ohio, it translated into a big loss. The demographic breakdowns in Ohio and Mississippi were almost identical. Yet Clinton won Ohio by 10 and lost Mississippi by 22. [...] Outside of the big contested states, Obama has done much better with white voters. Yes, this does point to the West as fertile ground for Obama. But these very trends do make Obama a bigger risk in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. This is not news for anyone who has been paying attention."
• David Sirota blames the Clinton camp for promoting this racial divide: "The Race Chasm -- states with more than 7 percent but less than 17 percent black populations -- is where Clinton has won three quarters of her states -- and that's no accident. These are states where black-white racial politics very much exist, but where the black vote is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. And that white vote is being motivated by the Clintons. Whether it was Bill Clinton likening Obama to Jesse Jackson; Clinton aides deriding Obama as "the black candidate" to the Associated Press; Geraldine Ferraro stoking anti-affirmative action anger by linking Obama's success to his skin color; or Clinton surrogates deliberately reminding white audiences that Obama lived in the inner city, the Clinton campaign has been working overtime to hone a message aimed at stoking racial fears. The message boils down to one simple mantra: Barack Obama Is Black."

CLINTON: More Of This, Please!

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Clinton's latest "3 A.M." ad attacks McCain, not Obama:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Go Hillary Clinton! This ad is great. It's a head on attack against John McCain's economic outlook, exactly what we should be seeing from our candidates. Hopefully Obama will follow suit and we can begin defining McCain."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Good for Hillary Clinton, breaking stride with the general tenor of the Democratic campaign and going after John McCain. [...] I will say, however, that I'd rather see Democrats attack McCain early on national security. McCain is very unpersuasive on economics, this is the weak point of his reputation with the national press corps, and Democrats have a lot of ex ante credibility on the issue. It's on security stuff where McCain has a glowing, but utterly undeserved, reputation that desperately needs some tarnishing."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Clinton has a new ad on the air in Pennsylvania attacking McCain on the economy (which is a good idea), but the reuse of the 3 a.m. format is just distracting. Still, Obama should follow suit. After all, the best way to determine who would be better at running against McCain has got to be seeing both candidates actually do it."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Turning her focus on John McCain is really smart for a couple of reasons. Obviously it's best for all involved for her to turn her fire away from Barack Obama, perhaps most importantly for her so she doesn't scare off wavering superdelegates who fear she'll ruin Obama and the party's chances in November if he's the nominee. But also, it actually behooves both Clinton and Obama to focus on criticizing McCain because if this nomination is going to hinge on electability, as it seems it just might since ultimately the nomination will be left up to the subjective judgment of the superdelegates, letting the supers see just how they intend to go head to head against McCain...is actually a really important part of this stage of the campaign, which, as sad as it is, is largely about wooing the superdelegates."

CLINTON II: Swing State Superstar

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the new Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton out-performing Obama against McCain in PA, OH, and FL:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "One of the things I've argued all along is that Clinton, in creating a narrative of standing up for Florida to be counted, has opened up the potential that she could win there over McCain. She already has a demographic advantage, with a heavy Latino voting population, migrated voters from NY and other NE locations, older women voters, and the main issue being economics. Obama's anemic numbers to date in Florida have pretty much taken it off the table for his chances (and who knows where he makes it up). [...] Ohio looks even better for Clinton vs McCain. The reason why, appears to be the economy. It's an issue on which Clinton has much more association, than either McCain or Obama, both of whom are associated with the Iraq war instead -- McCain as a warmonger and Obama as a voice of reason."
• Beeton: "Mark Penn couldn't have asked for a better result if he'd polled it himself. [This poll] seems to bolster Hillary Clinton's big state argument that she is better suited to win the 'big states that a Democrat needs in November' than Barack Obama is. [...] Obama has his strengths as well, including, obviously, African-Americans and Independents among whom Obama polls better against McCain than Clinton does, but Obama's white defector problem could be seen as a larger problem for him from an electability standpoint since this is the classic swing voter group, the so-called Reagan Democrats, that we'll need in the fall to win, especially against McCain."
• Big Tent Democrat: "Here is the crux of Hillary Clinton's electability argument...68 electoral votes. I believe Michigan will show similar results. 17 more electoral votes. I believe Obama can point to Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Virginia in his column of advantage. 55 electoral votes. I stand by my assessment, Obama expands the map, but is the bigger risk in the big contested states. More risk, more reward electorally. I still think the risk is worth the reward. I thought the argument more compelling pre-Wright of course. But I think it survives that."

CLINTON III: Hill-Bashing, Part I

Conservative bloggers continue to give Clinton some of the (negative) attention recently reserved for Obama. Several bloggers are discussing the allegations made by Clinton's former boss on the House Jud Cmte, Jerry Zeifman, who claims to have fired Clinton "because she was a liar":

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "One of the pitches Hillary Clinton has made to super delegates is that she is well vetted, and there aren't any surprises to come. Well, I'm not sure this should come as a surprise, but it's certainly news that Clinton was fired from one of her first jobs out of law school on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate, because her supervisor believed she was a liar. [...] This revelation means that we can draw a straight line of lying encompassing nearly her entire 35 year career, from Watergate to Bosnia."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't think this story will damage Clinton's candidacy: "A couple of factors will keep this story from getting the attention it deserves. First, while this was apparently in David Brock's book in the mid-90s, Democrats have been well-trained to question the timing. Also, most Americans may or may not hold a misdeed from 1974 against a candidate. Thirdly, I'm wondering how many Hillary supporters are backing her because they think she's the honest, trustworthy, and ethical candidate. My guess is they're backing her for other qualities. By comparison, Hillary's tale of the 'Tuzla Dash' is a much more damaging -- or as Ed [Morrissey] put it, a more easily digested story -- because it's much more recent, it involves multiple retellings of an implausible story, and there's clear video evidence refuting her claims."

CLINTON IV: Hill-Bashing, Part II

Other righty bloggers are mocking Clinton's latest "3 A.M." ad:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Hillary Clinton's latest '3 a.m.' ad is dopey. What economic crisis hits at 3 a.m, demanding immediate resolution? [...] And doesn't she still have to beat Barack Obama before worrying about John McCain? I frankly don't get the whole effort, which risks becoming a Saturday Night Live parody. [...] It seems painfully obvious the Clinton team has run out of material. Perhaps she could tell that one about running through sniper fire at the Treasury Department."
• Geraghty: "The problem is, while it's very plausible to suggest that a president would be awakened at 3 a.m. with word of a national security crisis suddenly developing overseas, it's really hard to imagine a situation in which the phone would ring in the White House at that hour to report 'home foreclosures mounting, markets teetering.' Most of the U.S. markets close at 4 p.m."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "What time is it? Time to move on. I'm almost as sick of the words '3 am' as I am of the words '100 years'."

CLINTON V: Hill-Bashing, Part III

Still other righty bloggers are mocking Bill Clinton for allegedly delivering a "tirade" during a meeting with CA superdelegates:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Really, reading this stuff is a little scary; it's clear that Clinton truly cannot control himself, and that there's something just a little bit wrong there. These fits of temper aren't new -- it's just that they're being reported in detail for the first time. And it's lucky for the former President that they weren't discussed earlier in his political career; his complete absence of self-control at some points raise serious questions about his temperament and his fitness to have a finger on the button."
• Michelle Malkin: "Bill's exploding again. Chelsea is churlish. And Hill's at the end of her rope."

OBAMA: Hanoi Jane Enters The Fray

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Jane Fonda's endorsement of Obama:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "I very much would like to know whether Senator Obama has the integrity to reject the support of a woman who was as much a part of John McCain's torture as the men who smashed rifle butts into John McCain's teeth."
• Morrissey: "[This endorsement] helps paint Barack Obama as a far-left candidate, and suggests that his flirtation with William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn wasn't just a one-off brush with radicalism."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Close observers of the campaign may recall that Senator McCain admits to having been tied up at the time of the 1969 Woodstock festival. He was still tied up at the time of Fonda's 1972 visit to Hanoi."

MCCAIN: Stop The Swiftboating!

Conservative bloggers continue to defend McCain against accusations that McCain wants to continue the Iraq War for another 100 years:

• RedState's California Yankee: "Obama continues to falsely state that McCain 'wants' another 100 years of war in Iraq. Even though at least two non partisan entities have found that Obama is grossly misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey isn't surprised: "No one who wants to win national office in America will run on the 'We Can't Win -- Surrender Now' platform. The Democrats know that; they wouldn't insist on a surrender even after winning a national election. Cheap distortion is all they have left."
• Matt Lewis: "This type of negative politics might be expected of Howard Dean, but Barack Obama claims to offer a new type of politics. Yet he's playing the same old partisan games of mischaracterization. (Will 'hundred yearing' replace 'swiftboating' as a description of an unfair and untrue attack? It's doubtful). [...] Still, I fear this could stick. It's easy to say McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. That fits on a bumper sticker. But explaining the truth takes a paragraph."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Torture Memo

Matthew Yglesias reacts to the declassified 2003 interrogation memo written by ex-DOJ lawyer John Yoo:

"Yoo aside, you need to really be staggered by the mental processes of his employer. Some subordinate shows up in your office with a memo about how it is, in fact, legal to break all kinds of laws -- specifically laws that seek to entrench a few hundred years' worth of conventional wisdom about the moral and political unacceptability of torturing people. What do you do? Fire the guy? See if you can recommend that he get counseling? Not if you're George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, if you're those guys you adopt the legal reasoning and move on to the torturing.

Except eventually it becomes clear that the torture's gotten out of hand -- it's happening to innocent people, it's spreading throughout the U.S. detention and interrogation system, it's producing all kinds of possibly spurious information, etc., so naturally you respond by classifying the whole thing and pretending that it would imperil national security for everyone to know what a bunch of sickos you are. It really makes the stomach churn."

LEST WE FORGET: Eventually Your Job Will Be The Subject Of A Reality Show

The Hater's Amelie Gillette:

"About a year ago, when Bravo was seemingly picking professions at random (Interior design! Hair styling! Hotel management!) [and] making them into Project-Runway-style reality competition shows...it was fun to imagine what the next job-turned-reality-show would be: Carpet installation, perhaps, or maybe Top ESL Instructor.

Well, apparently, the profession doesn't even need the faintest hint of glamour to be made into a reality show anymore. What's your job? Add a judges panel, a Queer Eye cast-off as host, and buckets and buckets of seriousness, and it could be a reality competition. Chances are, it probably will be one day (start honing your catchphrases now).

How else can you explain Groomer Has It, Animal Planet's very own Top Pet Groomer?...It doesn't matter how boring your job is. You could shave dogs for a living, and still find yourself crying about a difficult dog-shaving challenge on cable TV."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 3, 2008 12:45 PM