April 04, 2008

4/4: Penn Goes Off Script

After taking a brief detour earlier this week to criticize Harold Ickes, liberal bloggers are back to slamming their least favorite Hillary Clinton advisor, Mark Penn. This time, the netroots are criticizing Penn for meeting with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a bilateral free-trade pact -- a pact that Clinton opposes. While some bloggers are angry that Penn is lobbying for a free trade agreement that (allegedly) hurts U.S. workers, others are simply amazed that Penn would do something so politically stupid. This incident provides yet another example of how Clinton's advisers and surrogates have helped undermine her candidacy in the liberal blogosphere.

On the right side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers are discussing possible VP choices for John McCain. Jeremy Lott's Politico piece arguing for OK Sen Tom Coburn received a mixed reaction from bloggers. While righty bloggers overwhelmingly like and respect Coburn, not all of them believe that the OK senator is the best choice for McCain (for both political and electoral reasons). Meanwhile, while many bloggers are fond of Mitt Romney, few believe that McCain would pick someone whom he seems to personally dislike.

DEM FIELD: Thank You, Dems!

Conservative bloggers remain convinced that McCain is benefiting from the prolonged Dem primary:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "From the Republican perspective, the beauty of all of this is that while Hillary Clinton may no longer be able to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, she is making it plain that she does not want [Barack] Obama to win the general election and she is doing all she can to delay the point at which Obama can safely claim the Democratic nomination and be able to unify the Democratic party against John McCain and the Republicans."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Given the tepid support McCain has from conservatives, his mediocre fund raising, and the tough environment for Republicans, the long Democratic battle has been a godsend."

CLINTON: Penn Strikes Again

Liberal bloggers are once again criticizing Clinton advisor Mark Penn -- this time for meeting with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a bilateral free-trade pact (which Clinton opposes):

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There are so many reasons why candidates should be paying Mark Penn to stay as far away from their campaigns as possible. But this is yet another. Having your key campaign advisor also be an international man of mystery-cum-PR-lobbyist-cheeseball is fairly problematic. But for Hillary's sake, when her political future is on the line in a state like Pennsylvania, wracked by the loss of industrial jobs for decades, you think he could have waited a few more weeks before prancing off to help get a new free trade pact passed?"
• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "How can that be that Hillary's top surrogate was out supporting a deal she's against? Ah, for that you need Mark Penn's collection of invisible hats. [...] Penn wasn't wearing his Clinton Camp Top BS Artist hat, he was wearing his Smarmy Lobbyist Against US Workers hat. How nice it must be to have such a collection of invisible hats that no matter what you're up to, you always have an excuse. A good thing, too, because without those hats, Penn would come off as a cynical jerkwad who would sell out anyone or anything just to put another buck in his pocket. And then Hillary would be putting her campaign in the hands of someone whose beliefs are no deeper than the oil stain on top of a mud puddle."
• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "[This] could become Hillary Clinton's own version of the NAFTA-Gate controversy that caused Barack Obama so much trouble a month ago [...] Expect the Obama camp to hit Clinton for this on at least two angles: Hypocrisy on trade, and having as her top strategist a lobbyist for a foreign government."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay sees a coincidence: "Mark Penn met with his client, the Colombian government, to strategize about a trade pact his client, Hillary Clinton, opposes. [...Meanwhile,] Al Giordano has a post about an attack on Obama from Colombia's President [Alvaro] Uribe (Mark Penn's client) who Al calls 'the single biggest violator of human rights in the American hemisphere.' What a coincidence, huh?"

CLINTON II: Well, That Backfired

Several liberal bloggers are discussing a recent post by The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, who reports that "the effort by Hillary Clinton's bundlers to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into retracting her comments about superdelegates has caused a spurt of Obama-linked donations to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "When Clinton donors threatened Speaker Pelosi over her superdelegate comments, the whole effort seemed to backfire. Not only did Pelosi maintain her position, but DCCC donations spiked in response to the hardball tactics."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Here we have the two Democratic campaigns taking two very different tacks. On one hand, you have key supporters of one campaign going out and threatening one of the key party organs, offering the possibility that they will make it more difficult for the party to hold on to, or even pick up, seats in the House. On the other hand, you have the other campaign taking the exact opposite action, offering more support to the party committee and seeing its grassroots supporters send new online support to the party's effort in the House. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the differences here. But given the already present meme that Obama is an organizer and a party-builder while the Democratic Party dramatically shrunk during the last Clinton administration...the perception -- right or wrong -- isn't likely to go away on account of the situation surrounding the two campaigns and the DCCC."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, who's been a fierce critic of both Obama and Pelosi, disagrees: "Unlike Singer, I am bothered by the fact that Obama supporters have backed Pelosi's divisiveness. It is incredibly shortsighted. We will need a united Party in November and Pelosi has been as harmful a Party Elder as we have seen. [...] The intent to divide the Party seems unshakeable for Pelosi and some Obama supporters. It seems simply idiotic to me."

OBAMA: Money Ain't A Thang

Liberal bloggers are impressed by the $40M that Obama raised in March, and they think this says good things about his general election strength:

• Ezra Klein: "At this rate, can't [Obama] just pay McCain and Clinton to drop out?"
• Benen: "Love him or hate him, I've never seen or heard of a Democrat who could rally this kind of financial support."
• Singer: "Taking in more than $130 million in a quarter is a pretty remarkable feat, and speaks to one of the real strengths Obama would have in a general election. While it is the case, and I've mentioned it before, that money does not necessarily correlate with success -- Obama lost both Ohio and Texas to Hillary Clinton despite having outspent her in both states -- a general election campaign flush with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank rather than merely $80 or $90 million (which is the cap set by the public financing program) would be able to help a candidate expand the map and put more states in play. Given that some states that are not traditionally blue are already potentially in play for Obama, I have little doubt that he would be able to find 270 -- or a lot more -- come November."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "March was arguably Obama's worst month of the campaign...so one would expect his fundraising to have suffered. Obviously it didn't. Based on what the Clinton campaign leaked to Time, that Clinton didn't hit $20 million, and adding in the $13 million raised by McCain, Obama raised more money in March than both his Democratic and Republican rivals combined. [...] It would be great for the party if Hillary Clinton would admit she won't be the nominee, and step aside so Obama can focus exclusively on defeating John McCain. By staying in a contest she can't win, Hillary Clinton is imposing an opportunity cost on Democrats by keeping Obama from being able to devote his full resources from taking on John McCain."

OBAMA II: Why Do You Hate America, Senator?

Conservative bloggers continue to question Obama's patriotism:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If [Obama] really believed Americans were honorable, would he have established that close and lasting bond with [Jeremiah] Wright? Would his wife be suggesting she hasn't been proud of the country for 25 years? Would he call wearing a flag pin a symbol of 'false patriotism'?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[Obama's] life experience is utterly unlike the average voter's. On his journey from Hawaii to Indonesia to Hawaii to Harvard, he probably ran into a lot of critiques of American culture and not very much bowling. [...] Obama is still grasping for a connection to the people whose votes will be critical in November. That is the downside of continually criticizing your country and fellow countrymen. It makes it that much harder to turn around and tell them you're one of them."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Many liberals honestly don't believe in American exceptionalism, and see overt displays of love of country as unsophisticated and rube-like. Exhibit A of this phenomenon? Barack's own definition of patriotism, offered in the wake of his decision to stop wearing an American flag pin, when he characterized 'true patriotism' as 'speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.' In other words, protest=patriotism; objecting to policies is the defining feature of love of country, in his formulation. That's hardly uplifting."

MCCAIN: Burnin' For Coburn

Conservative bloggers are discussing Jeremy Lott's Politico piece about why McCain should pick OK Sen Tom Coburn as his running mate:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "In today's Politico, our Jeremy Lott makes the case for Tom Coburn as John McCain's running mate. He's convinced me."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's really hard to think of any one move that could help McCain out among conservatives than picking Coburn as his running mate. In addition to all of the points Jeremy made, one interesting wrinkle is Coburn's relationship with Barack Obama. The two worked together on earmark transparency, they are friends with one another, as are their wives. Coburn has had a lot of nice things to say about Obama publicly. Were he McCain's running mate, he'd be in a strong position to say. 'Look, I've worked with Sen. Obama, I like and respect him, and think he's a good man. But I McCain is more prepared to be president, and has better policies.' That's the kind of tone I think Republicans will need to beat Obama."

Other bloggers aren't as enthusiastic about the idea:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I think Coburn is probably the best Senator in office today, but I'm not sure he would be the best VP pick for McCain. He doesn't deliver a state (McCain will win Oklahoma either way), he doesn't offer executive experience, and he certainly won't temper his potentially grumpy/cantakerous image, either. What is more, conservatives who value Coburn's role in the Senate may object to losing him. Bottom line: McCain could certainly do much, much worse than Coburn. Still, I think [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford or Romney are wiser picks, at least, electorally."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Yes, his legislative record's impressive. Yes, he delivered a hell of a speech in support of Maverick at CPAC. Yes, he wears the badge of southern authenticity before which 95% of Republicans genuflect. [...] I have but one exit question. Is the party really ready for a guy on the ticket who evidently thinks the war was a mistake? Can you imagine the Democratic campaign commercials? Let's see a show of hands on this one."

MCCAIN II: What's Wrong With Mitt?

Most righty bloggers are reacting negatively to the news that a group of prominent social conservatives wrote an open letter to McCain, urging him not to select Romney as his running mate:

• CBN's David Brody: "The names attached to this open letter are big ones in the social conservative world but one stands out: Paul Weyrich. He endorsed Romney during the primary and now has signed this letter trashing Romney for VP. Huh? Excuse me while I scratch my head and take an Excedrin."
• Allahpundit: "[Romney is] 'utterly unacceptable'? Even I wouldn't go that far, and I've been cool to the idea of putting him on the ticket for months. [...] What's this really about? After 18 months of Romney running for president, suddenly these guys have a problem with his record?"
• Matt Lewis: "With the exception of Weyrich, who endorsed Romney, the signers all tend to be former [Mike] Huckabee supporters. One source, who was close to the Romney campaign, tells me this is an attempt to elevate Mike Huckabee as a possible VP pick. [...] Question: Knowing what you do of McCain, do you think that these guys' opinion of Mitt makes him more or less likely to pick Mitt based on their opinion?...My guess is that they have achieved the opposite of their supposed intent and in fact made Mitt more acceptable to McCain after their attacks."

Commentary's John Podhoretz thinks McCain is unlikely to pick Romney anyway: "[McCain] is a very personal politician. He likes people he likes, and has contempt for people he doesn't. He really seems not to like Romney, and though Romney would be the most conventional choice, McCain is unlikely to make a choice entirely based on convention and prudence when he has to pick someone with whom he is going to work closely for months and maybe years. I've been joking that McCain might feel differently if Romney were to pony up $75 million for the general-election run. But this too raises the problem with a Romney candidacy -- wouldn't there be intense speculation of precisely this kind of quid pro quo, that McCain effectively sold the VP slot to Romney because of his great wealth?"

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru, on the other hand, doesn't believe it's unthinkable that McCain would pick Romney: "Even people who think Romney as veep makes sense think McCain probably won't go for it because he dislikes the man. Maybe they're right. But my sense is that McCain disliked [George W.] Bush after 2000 a lot more than he dislikes Romney now, and he got over that. He would have less time to do so before picking a veep, but it's not as though he is psychologically incapable of looking past his personal history with someone."

MCCAIN III: Breaking The Law He Wrote?

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize McCain for withdrawing (illegally, in their view) from the public campaign financing system. They are currently discussing a letter that the nonprofit group Common Cause sent to McCain, which urged McCain to support campaign finance reforms "both in actions and in words":

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "John McCain is in the public financing system, which has a spending cap of $54 million in the primaries. He has now spent, by his own admission, over $58 million. He has tried to claim that he can just withdraw from the system at will, but FEC Chairman David Masonsays he can't , and now Common Cause says he can't. A pretty bold move, considering the crap that the vindictive McCain has given them in the past. Good for Common Cause. Now where's Democracy 21? Calling Fred Wertheimer..."
• Sudbay: "You know things are bad when Common Cause has to tell McCain that 'it is vital that you respect the role of the FEC.' The so-called 'champion' of campaign finance reform shouldn't have to be told that. Maybe this letter from Common Cause will perk the interest of the McCain traveling press corps -- or anyone in the traditional media. Don't count on it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bad Faith?

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"Shocker -- Republican Pundits Now Prefer Clinton! Noam [Scheiber] links to an interview with Karl Rove, and notes that 'Rove is pretty down on Obama, and actually somewhat sympathetic to Hillary. Though he doesn't explicitly say why.' Gee, could it be that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, and Clinton isn't? Can it be a coincidence that last year, when most people thought Clinton's nomination was inevitable, conservative pundits were filled with praise for Obama, and now that his victory is near-inevitable they're changing their tune?"

LEST WE FORGET: In A Boy's Dream

Wonkette's Jim Newell explains how "Obama-Dave Matthews Ticket Giveaway Ruins Bill Clinton Rally":

"Bill Clinton was stumping for the wife at Indiana University Wednesday, and as the would-be attendees were waiting in line, some devious Obama supporters pulled an evil trick involving a terrible band from the 1990s.

Right around the start of Bill Clinton's speech, the Obama campaign started giving out tickets to Sunday's Dave Matthews concert at I.U. College kids never develop new music tastes, so a flock of people waiting for Clinton left to get tickets, leaving poor Bill alone. 'I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure,' said one student who is allowed to vote in this country."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 4, 2008 12:39 PM