April 07, 2008

4/7: Good Riddance!

Hillary Clinton's online supporters and detractors both cheered the news that chief strategist Mark Penn resigned. Pro-Clinton bloggers, convinced that Penn's strategic blunders hurt Clinton's candidacy, were delighted to see him go, although many wish that Clinton had sacked him sooner. Clinton's online critics agree that Penn hasn't served Clinton well, but they also believe that Clinton's loyalty to Penn reflects poorly on the NY senator's judgment.

Meanwhile, the criticism of Hillary Clinton in the liberal blogosphere continues unabated. The netroots are currently angry with Clinton for falsely claiming that she criticized the war in Iraq before Barack Obama did. The netroots have long been disappointed that Obama never emerged as an anti-war leader in the Senate -- it's one of the major reasons that liberal bloggers didn't rally behind Obama until after John Edwards left the race. However, the netroots' disappointment with Obama doesn't mean that they're about to cut Clinton any slack when it comes to her own record on Iraq.

DEM FIELD: Your Move, Superdelegates

In his Newsweek column, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas argues that Clinton has already lost: "No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination. [...] Clinton's near-lone chance of victory rests with a coup by superdelegate, persuading enough of them to overcome the primary voters' preference. Yet a coup by elite Democrats would be ill-received, to put it mildly. [...] If Beltway bigwigs steal a hard-won victory, it would amount to a declaration of civil war. Not only would the resolve of thousands of loyal foot soldiers and the party's new fund-raising base be irrevocably shaken, but it would torpedo the opportunity to build and strengthen a new generation of Democrats. Clinton's best-case scenario for victory requires sundering her own party. It is an inherently divisive strategy, but she doesn't appear to care. For Clinton, all's fair in pursuit of victory -- even destroying her party from within."

Moulitsas continues: "Yet while the Beltway establishment frets about the alleged damage this drawn-out contest is doing to the Democratic Party, in reality, it's been an almost unalloyed good...State after state has reported record turnout, and thousands of new Democrats are registering in advance of each contest. [...] There's [also] no denying that the extra pressure has made Obama a better candidate. [...] No one can persuade Clinton to get out of the primary race. But by any metric imaginable, Obama has already won. The superdelegates aren't self-destructive enough to change that, and the sooner they line up behind Obama, the sooner Democrats can focus their fire on the real target: John McCain. Clinton can stick around, but the rest of the party will move on without her."

In a separate blog post, Moulitsas clarifies his views: "As I mention in the [Newsweek] column, I won't call on Clinton to quit the race because it would be stupid to do so. It's her call to make when she's good and ready to make that call. But aside from that, it is time for the super delegates to put this thing to bed. We're all itching to take on McCain, so let's get the main show started."

DEM FIELD II: ...Or Is It Hillary's Move?

Influential Daily Kos diarist Meteor Blades writes a letter to Clinton, urging her to concede: "Dear Senator Clinton...I'm writing to ask you -- to plead with you -- to admit to yourself what is clear to nearly everyone who is closely following this contest: Your chances of getting the nomination are slim. Your chances of getting the nomination in a way that can heal the party for the unified run we need to win in November are nil. And every day you continue to pursue the nomination is another day for John McCain. [...] As a fellow blogger by the name of Kid Oakland wrote in a most excellent essay a few days ago, Senator, right now is a Clinton moment. Right now you can have an instantaneously positive impact on the coming general election that will never again be as powerful. You can seize the moment, today, tomorrow, early next week, and give the Democratic nominee an edge in November. Or you can hang in there and hamstring us. Please. Acknowledge what you know to be so. Every day you wait is a day for John McCain."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "I was struck by [Meteor Blades'] idea that it is incumbent on the loser in the Presidential nomination race to move to unify the Party and think about winning in November. My view is that it is the responsibility of the likely nominee to move towards unifying the Party. [...] What should Obama do? I believe, first and foremost, for the sake of his general election candidacy and for the sake of the Democratic Party, I believe he should move to settle the MI/FL dispute, preferably by revotes. [...] Second, Barack Obama should recognize and appreciate the importance of the Clinton legacy to the Democratic Party. [...] Third, Barack Obama should acknowledge the merits of his opponent, Hillary Clinton...I believe he should choose her as his running mate. [...] Fourth, Obama should acknowledge and embrace the fact that his agenda is the Democratic agenda, and also the Clinton agenda. That in fact, almost nothing divides us on issues."

CLINTON: You Won't Have Penn To Kick Around Any More

Liberal bloggers were pleased to learn that Clinton's much-maligned adviser, Mark Penn, has resigned his position as the campaign's chief strategist:

• Ezra Klein: "Good for [the Clinton camp]. It might be too late, but it's a good move anyway. If this campaign does nothing else, it should destroy of the myth of Mark Penn's competence."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "There was always a huge conflict of interest within the campaign with Penn being both pollster and chief strategist -- especially since Penn was a pollster whose results frequently seemed massaged to achieve a predetermined result. He never seemed to have any sense of limits, and his most recent decision to meet with the government of Columbia as the head of Burson-Marsteller regarding the Columbia Free Trade Agreement, even as he was working for the Clinton campaign, was unfathomable. The idea that success in politics entitles you to be Chief Thief is one I think safely left to the Republicans."

Pro-Clinton bloggers were delighted by the news of Penn's resignation:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Hallelujah!"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Music to my ears. [...] It should be noted that Penn will still be doing work for the campaign, so perhaps this is just cosmetic, but anything at this point to put distance between him and the campaign is welcome, although months too late in my opinion."
• Taylor Marsh: "I wanted him out after Iowa. Hey, but if Clinton can take advantage of Penn's talents on polling and other things, without him being out front, because he's now ruined is public persona, it works for me."

CLINTON II: What Did She See In That Guy, Anyway?

Several bloggers argued that Clinton's loyalty to Penn doesn't reflect well on the NY senator:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Why the Clinton campaign would even keep him around is baffling; he has always sucked. [...] As a candidate or an office holder, you need people around you who can and will tell you what you don't want to hear, and to whom you'll listen when you don't like what you're hearing. She has tremendous talents, but based on her two biggest leadership challenges, it looks like Hillary Clinton is too susceptible to the charms of people who tell her what she wants to hear rather than what she needs to hear."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "[Clinton] knows perfectly well that a great many influential people in left-of-center circles don't like Penn, including many people in her inner circle. But she sincerely believes, and has believed for years, that Penn's advice about political strategies is immensely valuable. That's why he was an important strategist in the later years of the Clinton administration, that's why he was the chief architect of her Senate campaign, and that's why he's been one of the main architects of her Presidential bid. There's no sense in acting like he's some guy who for some crazy reason seems to keep popping up near Hillary Clinton -- they're not identical, but close association with Penn and Penn's approach is part of who she is. So if it's time for anyone to go, I think it's time for her to go."
• Ezra Klein: "The ultimate responsibility here doesn't lie with Penn. It lies with Clinton. If she had demanded that Penn step down from his political PR firm to help run her campaign, he would've, just as Karl Rove stepped down from his other commitments to strategize for George W. Bush."

Other bloggers noted that Penn, according to the campaign statement, will still provide "polling and advice" to Clinton's campaign:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The statement does conspicuously go out of its way to say that Penn and his firm will not only keep doing polling but also keep advising the campaign. [...] When you figure how much grief this swaggering oaf has caused the Clinton campaign, if you're going to can him you'd think you would want to present it as something of a clean break, even if in the background some ties might actually remain. Yet the statement seems to have been massaged in such a way as to leave the murkiest of impressions."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "This announcement aims to reduce Penn's visibility, but obviously he will continue his high-paying job providing 'polling and advice' to Sen. Clinton. Tweaking titles does nothing to address the serious questions about Penn's potential conflicts of interest, which The Nation's Ari Berman began reporting as far back as last May."

CLINTON III: Are You Sure That's What Happened?

Liberal bloggers are slamming Clinton for falsely claiming that she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did. ABC's Jake Tapper reports:

"Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, 'when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.'

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)

But even if one were to employ this 'Start Counting in January 2005' measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first."

• Atrios: "As I've said before, there are times the Clinton campaign is just sticking its finger into my brain. Usually it's the campaign and surrogates, and not the candidate herself, but this time it's coming from her. [...] It's fair to say that Obama didn't exactly spend his time in the Senate being an anti-war leader, but this moving the goalpost stuff is really annoying. The Iraq war has been a colossal moral, fiscal, and humanitarian disaster. Those who opposed it were marginalized, vilified, and ignored by our elites. Those who opposed it, in any way, had a bit of courage even if they weren't in the Senate at the time."


• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I'm not inclined to hold Clinton's '02 vote against her. I'm also inclined to shrug my shoulders about Clinton's reluctance to acknowledge that her vote was a mistake. But it's discouraging that she was willing, at least yesterday, to start bragging about criticism she didn't make."


• Yglesias: "Hillary Clinton once again tries to pretend that she was more against the Iraq War than Obama was. It turns out that this is true if you ignore the events of 2002, and those of 2003, and those of 2004 and then misportray the events of 2005."

CLINTON IV: Here We Go Again

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton for telling a story about an uninsured mother and her child that turns out to be false:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Sigh. Another Hillary Clinton stump speech story comes under scrutiny for truthiness. [...] Are there really not enough honest to God nightmare health care stories out there that you have to make 'em up? And what does this say about the Clinton operation's ability to verify information -- a minimal requirement, one would think, for the position of commander-in-chief?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Since the Clinton campaign is talking to superdelegates about 'electability,' the superdelegates should ponder the narrative that is developing about Hillary Clinton's ability to tell the truth. It's not like she just relayed this health care story or just told the Tuzla story. Watch those videos again. She was emphatic in both cases and went into great detail. Yet, neither are true. Now, I don't imagine the Republicans would make hay out of this pattern in the general election, do you?"

Big Tent Democrat defends Clinton: "If you are intent on hating Hillary Clinton, you can make a big deal about this honest potential mistake -- which came from relying upon an honest Ohio Sheriff's Deputy. If what you care about is blasting Hillary Clinton -- if you do not care about reforming health care in this country -- then by all means -- act as if you see this as a big Clinton lie."

MCCAIN: Who You Callin' A Warmonger?

Conservative bloggers are outraged that liberal talk show host Ed Schultz called McCain a "warmonger" while introducing Obama at a North Dakota fundraiser:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Is calling McCain a warmonger the way to spread hope and unity? Note the contrast with how McCain reacted when his introducer savaged Obama a few weeks ago. Obama, however, doesn't seem able to stand up to the haters on his own team."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama lets his surrogates do the namecalling at his events, and then comes on stage himself to blather about setting a new tone in politics and uplifting the level of discourse in DC. He has a fabulous start on it thus far, having his campaign events serve as a springboard for slurs against McCain -- a man with one son already in this conflict and another about to begin a tour shortly."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "While Barack Obama claims to want to offer a new 'brand' of politics, he once again demonstrates his willingness to go along with the same old partisan attacks. Conversely, John McCain was wise to condemn remarks made by another radio host in Ohio, a while back (in both cases, the candidates were not present when the remarks were made). Clearly, McCain is the one who has embraced a new kind of politics that eschews negative attacks."
• RedState's California Yankee: "Obama owes McCain and America an apology, more than one actually. One for Obama's misrepresentations about McCain's comments about residual troops remaining in Iraq, and one for Schultz's hate filled and inflammatory language."

Power Line's John Hinderaker isn't surprised by Schultz's comments: "I'm not sure why so many of our fellow conservatives are surprised. To run for office as a Democrat is to prey on (and pray for) ignorance. Ed Schultz is an ignoramus, hence an appropriate speaker at the Democratic Convention; he is also a typical Democratic Party activist. How, exactly, did conservatives think the Democrats would attack McCain? McCain is willing, when necessary, to defend his country. This is what the Democrats mean by 'warmonger.'"

MCCAIN II: Bush, The Sequel?

In anticipation of his major speech on Iraq, liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for his foreign policy positions:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "The difference between John McCain and the Republican dead-enders vs the Democrats and the two-thirds or more of Americans willing to face reality is that we realize it's time to start leaving Iraq. John McCain wants us to stay there another 100 years to see if things get better. And the RNC is trying desperately to convince people John McCain didn't mean it. Or didn't say it. Or...something."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "One of the things the media will never do is call McCain foolish or silly. But considering his full-support of Bush's policies and his continued pursuit of undefined, unattainable 'victory' in Iraq there are few other monikers to give him, other than more unflattering descriptions."
• Sudbay: "McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse."
• Yglesias: "[McCain] spent most of 1999 and 2000 criticizing Bush for being unwilling to adopt a doctrine of rogue state rollback. Back in 2002 while Bush was unwilling to publicly argue for invading Iraq, McCain was doing it. And while Bush was full of talk about disarmament, McCain was clear from the start that he would settle only for regime change. McCain spent a lot of time criticizing Bush for not sending enough Americans over to Iraq to be killed, and has also been known to criticize Bush for insufficient saber-rattling directed at such countries as Iran, Syria, and Russia. So, really, it's not fair to say that McCain is just like Bush -- he's been a much more consistent proponent of the worst policies associated with the Bush administration."

MCCAIN III: The Man, The Myth, The Legend

Liberal bloggers continue to decry the media's alleged pro-McCain bias:

• Benen: "It continues to amaze me when Republicans complain -- as they often do -- that the media has been too easy on Barack Obama. The lengths some of these news outlets go to help John McCain at times makes it appear they're on his payroll."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "Moves that would lead the press to denounce any other politician for shameless, spineless kowtowing were lamented as cruel necessity, which journalists openly imagined must be causing McCain considerable distress. His definitive turn to the right was taken as a necessary -- even shrewd! -- concession to political reality, while the media remained utterly oblivious to its own role in creating the earlier image of McCain as significantly more moderate than he actually was."
• Digby: "The press is still enabling the Republicans on the issue of Iraq, this time in service of their anointed candidate McCain. [...] McCain's the guy they want to sit in the back of the bus and have a beer with. That's all that matters."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "John McCain is [supposedly] as Regular a Guy as it gets, even though he dumped his first wife (the mother of his three children) after she was disfigured and disabled by a near-fatal car accident so that he could marry his much younger, much prettier, and extremely wealthy heiress-mistress, whose family riches then launched his political career and sustained a life of luxury for almost three decades (that's how McCain's rustic 'Sedona cabin' -- i.e., his sprawling compound -- came to be)."

Some bloggers are worried that the Obama-Clinton battle is preventing Dems from "defining" McCain:

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "[My fear] is that if, in the midst of the nomination battle, the Democratic Party and outside efforts (including organizations and the blogosphere) are unable to successfully define John McCain on our terms. [...] McCain is a bad guy -- so pro-aggressive military action it is truly scary -- and just as conservative as Bush on the economy. We need to get this message out about him both to the public and, it seems, to our own donors."
• Beeton: "This brand that [McCain] has fashioned for himself, of an independent-minded man of principle, of a moderate who bucks conventional Republican orthodoxy, is stubborn indeed. [...] This education of the electorate is going to be central to beating him in November, an education that is necessarily somewhat delayed due to the ongoing search for a nominee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are You Experienced?

Todd Beeton:

"If Obama wins the nomination, his number one goal when picking his running mate should be to shore up his experience credentials. Many Obama supporters will say that Obama's community organizing experience in Chicago is exactly the sort of experience the president should have; that Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary Clinton, blah blah blah. It is all irrelevant. The fact is, Obama has not convinced the electorate that he has the sort of experience people usually associate with the presidency, whether executive, diplomatic, national security, the list goes on, he just hasn't. Democratic primary voters have thus far been quite unconcerned about this gap in his resume, but general election voters will need some reassurance and Obama's VP pick is the way to do it. Sorry Governors [Tim] Kaine and [Kathleen] Sebelius."

LEST WE FORGET: Living History

McSweeney's contributor Nick Ripatrazone describes "Other Dangerous Historical Events Hillary Clinton Experienced As First Lady":

Event: While Ms. Clinton reads It Takes a Village to a second-grade class, a student vomits on the carpet.

Clinton Description: "I remember landing under sniper fire. We dove to the floor as if a tornado-like wind had plowed us down. I covered my face with the book, but others were not so lucky: one girl had to burn her sneakers after the soles were marked with hellish regurgitation. I was able to herd the children out, counting each of their little heads as they passed, ensuring the safety of America's future."

Event: Socks misses the kitty-litter box.

Clinton Description: "I remember landing under sniper fire. The smell was akin to mustard gas; I covered my face with an afghan and escorted Socks outside. I made sure that nobody, not even the cleaning staff, was allowed to enter the room until the noxious stench had dissipated. Well, almost nobody; I did tell Bill to go in and save my copy of Little Women. He came out and said, 'Sweet Arkansas, Hill, that's some mealy excrement.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 7, 2008 12:56 PM