May 30, 2008

5/30: Look, Ma, No Math!

On the eve of the much-anticipated DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, liberal bloggers continue to dispute Hillary Clinton's claim that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote. Markos Moulitsas crunches the numbers from every contest that was held this cycle (including FL & MI, the TX caucus, and the unsanctioned primaries in NE, WA, and ID) and calculates that Obama actually leads Clinton by 82,115 votes. Moulitsas writes: "While Clinton may claim she's gotten more votes than Obama this year, fact is, that's not true under any scenario unless you start excluding elections." Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow calls the popular vote "a meaningless metric from the start." Still, should Clinton win a sizeable victory in Puerto Rico on Sunday (which seems likely, based on the latest polls), you can bet that the Clinton camp will continue to push this popular vote argument in the coming days. Whether the superdelegates will buy it is another story...

CLINTON: I Thought You Wanted To Count All The Votes...

Liberal bloggers dispute Clinton's claim that she leads Obama in the popular vote:

• Moulitsas: "Since the Clinton campaign wants to count unsanctioned contests and include their votes into the popular vote tally ('I've gotten the most votes ever!'), here are a couple more unsanctioned contests that could be thrown into the tally: (1.) Nebraska: Obama +2,663 (2.) Washington: Obama +36,015 (3.) Idaho: Obama +7,869. Those are all from non-binding primaries conducted in those caucus states. Combined, they'd add 46,547 votes for Obama if we were stupid enough to think that votes that don't matter actually count. But that's not all the votes that were cast for either Obama or Clinton this year. There's the Texas caucuses, which aren't counted in any popular vote tallies. But since every vote matters to Clinton, and she's claiming that she's gotten more votes cast for her than any other Democrat in a primary, then of course we have to be intellectually consistent and, well, count every vote. Based on sign-in sheets at caucus sites, turnout for the caucuses was roughly 750,000. Obama won the caucuses 56-44. That 12-point spread is another 90,000-vote gain for Obama."
• Moulitsas continues: "That means that tallying EVERY single contest this cycle, even the ones that didn't count (since that's the Clinton standard), gives Obama an extra 136,547 votes. Now let's look at the popular vote tally if Michigan, Florida, and the caucus states are counted (and remember, this is with Obama getting zero votes in Michigan): Clinton has a 54,432-vote advantage. Now let's roll in the vote totals from every other contest that didn't matter, and we now have a 82,115-vote Obama advantage. So while Clinton may claim she's gotten more votes than Obama this year, fact is, that's not true under any scenario unless you start excluding elections. This post is absurd, of course -- there's no reason to count the votes of non-binding contests that had no bearing on the delegate selection process, and it's sketchy at best to double count Texas voters participating in their two binding contests. Still, this post is the logical extension of the Clinton argument. If you're going to count every vote cast this primary cycle, even those of contests that didn't count, then you count every single vote cast, including those of every contest that didn't count."
• RJ Eskow: "The notion that Clinton has won the most 'popular votes' is a meaningless metric from the start. Clinton people say Florida and Michigan Democrats shouldn't be 'penalized' for the errors of others, yet their argument punishes voters who stayed home in those states believing their votes wouldn't count. And it 'penalizes' Democrats in every single caucus state! Yet Clinton defenders insist on claiming they're fighting for the 'principle' of 'counting every vote.' Gen. Wesley Clark, who I respect (and would like to see nominated for VP), made this claim last night on Dan Abrams. But this so-called 'principle' disenfranchises Democrats in Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming...and parts of Texas. Is that really a 'value every Democrat should support,' as Gen. Clark claimed?"

OBAMA: Pastorized

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama after Michael Pfleger, a white Catholic priest from Chicago, was videotaped mocking Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Obama's church:

• Michelle Malkin: "Pfleger, who until recently was featured on the Obama campaign website as a spiritual endorser, was back at Obama's Trinity United Church this weekend mocking Hillary Clinton's 'white entitlement.' It's one thing to ridicule Hillary's sense of political and ideological entitlement as part of the Clinton dynasty. But the demagogic emphasis on her race from this hate preacher on the pulpit is quite another thing. You really have to see his performance to believe it."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Words cannot describe the surreality of watching a middle-aged white man in a priest's collar appearing like he is trying to imitate Jeremiah Wright at his most outrageous."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Like Wright, Pfleger is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan. Post[ed] below is video of Rev. Pfleger preaching at Obama's church. Pfleger argues that whites must give up their 401(k) money in order to have any hope of atoning for the sins of their ancestors. He also maintains that Hillary Clinton's unhappiness over losing out to Obama is specifically related to his race. In other words, Clinton would have been less distraught had, say, John Edwards bested her. In this account, of course, Clinton is a racist."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Add Pfleger to the list of friends that Obama has to disown that includes Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Tony Rezko."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "According to this CSM piece from last year, Barry O's known Pfleger since his early days in Chicago. Funny how these longtime acquaintances of his keep 'surprising' him with incendiary racial rhetoric."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Personally, I consider Father Michael Pfleger's oratory from this past Sunday at Obama's Trinity United Church less striking than Jeremiah Wright's. Nevertheless, it's still odd how Obama wound up in the company of so many people for 20 years whose true natures eluded him. By his own reckoning, the candidate is clearly a less-than-canny observer of human nature. I certainly hope he acknowledges this shortcoming before attempting mano-a-mano diplomacy with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The reporting on Pfleger casts a new and disturbing light on Barack Obama. [...] It suggests, disturbingly, that Barack either agrees with -- or is all too willing to tolerate -- radical racial hate speech from the left. It's clear that Barack has accepted contributions from Pfleger, accepted his endorsement (although James Taranto reports that the campaign has since suppressed it) and directed a whole lot of Illinois taxpayers' money to Pfleger's projects. No doubt Barack will tell us that he supported Pfleger's good works, not his radical race-baiting. OK; there's a way to test that claim. Has Barack sought to support any good works by conservative pastors with whom he disagrees? Or does his tolerance for ideas he claims he doesn't share extend only to the left side?"

MCCAIN: Let The Googlebombing Commence

Several liberal bloggers are launching an effort to "Googlebomb" John McCain:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Searching for John McCain is a massive, online activism campaign designed to make at least ten million non-partisan, poll-tested, on-message voter contacts that reveal the damning truth about John McCain entirely through mainstream news reports and McCain's own words. Through mass blogger participation and the use of embedded hyperlinks, Searching for John McCain will connect millions of curious, low-information swing voters to negative, mainstream news articles about John McCain without 99% of those voters even knowing that Searching for John McCain exists. It is the more sophisticated, and hopefully more effective, 2.0 version of the Googlebomb the Elections campaign which, with only $1,500 and three days of work, reached 6% of the electorate in 47 swing congressional districts during the final two weeks of the 2006 mid-term elections. You can participate if you have a website of your own, if you make comments on other websites, or even if you are a registered user on a community website. It is quick. It is easy. It is free. And it is very, very effective. If it is done correctly, and if enough people participate, this campaign alone should cost John McCain 1% of the vote in November."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "What do you do for an encore once your Googlebomb project causes Michelle Malkin to unleash her legion of shrieking howler monkeys on you? Well if you're Chris Bowers, you set your sights on John McCain. According to Pew, the number one way voters use the internet is to search for candidate information. Ergo, it makes sense to try and embed hyperlinks of telling McCain articles across the internet in order to raise their Google ranking. So here we go:

  1--McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'
  2--McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist
  3--Bush, McCain plug Social Security
  4--McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA
  5--McCain in NH: Would Be 'Fine' To Keep Troops in Iraq for 'A Hundred Years'
  6--McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
  7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition
  8--McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion
  9--McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy"

MCCAIN II: Vice President Palin?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about the possibility that McCain will select AK Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, following Wizbang's Kevin Aylward's report that the head of McCain's VP search team was recently spotted in Juneau:

• Aylward: "A tipster sent us word that John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. There's only one reason he would be there -- to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position. [...] Governor Palin would (in my estimation) make an excellent VP candidate for McCain. Thomas Cheplick at The American Spectator makes the case that she's probably the only VP candidate who can balance the ticket against Obama. She's also a potential magnet for disaffected Hillary Clinton voters, many of whom are just looking for a reason not to vote for Obama."
• The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan: "In many ways, Palin is an ideal choice: a governor, a woman, a conservative, a Christian, a budget-cutting fiscal hawk known for opposition to pork-barrel projects. And even as an Alaska governor who favors drilling in ANWR, she is known for standing up to 'Big Oil.' Would McCain really make such an unorthodox selection? And does the fact that Governor Palin merits a clandestine visit, rather than an invitation to McCain's VP cattle call indicate that she is a more serious candidate than the others, or is it simply because Palin gave birth just over a month ago?"
• Allahpundit: "I'm cool to the idea of her on the ticket but less so than I used to be. The Spectator likes her as balance for our old-coot nominee, although I'm not sure why when the main line of attack on Obama this fall will be that he's not an old coot, i.e. that he's too young and inexperienced to handle the job. Palin's been governor for two years, which is longer than [LA Gov. Bobby] Jindal but still less time than Obama's been a senator. If he's not ready, why is she ready to inherit the presidency at a moment's notice if, god forbid, McCain's age gets the better of him? Needless to say, her home state's no electoral prize either, and given her approval rating (in the 80s, last I checked) can probably be delivered if she simply campaigns for him there as a regular ol' supporter. So why am I warming up to her? First because the GOP needs new faces, figuratively and literally, and as faces go you can scarcely do better than hers right now (figuratively and literally). [...] Second, obviously, having her on the ticket would steal some of Obama's media juice as the candidate with the Narrative versus the same old patrician Republican crap. And third, well, watch this. We're not going to win the woman vote, but there are surely some [Geraldine] Ferraros out there disgruntled enough about how Hillary was treated to give McCain/Palin a very close look."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is It In Her DNA?

Open Left's Matt Stoller speculates about why Clinton appears committed to staying in the race:

"This is why I think Clinton is staying on despite repeated pleas to drop out. In 1998, insiders on both the right and left of the party were begging [Bill] Clinton to resign, and he refused. It was a great decision, possibly the best one in his Presidency. And so today, when insiders are begging [Hillary Clinton] to give up what she thinks is her Presidency, she is saying no and turning to the right. It's in her DNA."

LEST WE FORGET: Desperate Chives Marketing Board Launches 'Big Bowl O' Chives In The Mornin'' Campaign

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- In response to flagging sales and plummeting prices, the American Chives Council launched a last-ditch advertising campaign Monday urging consumers to increase their daily chive intake by 12,000 percent. 'There's nothing like a hearty, fragrant helping of chives to jump-start your day,' celebrity spokeswoman Jessica Alba says in one of the new 'Big Bowl o' Chives in the Mornin'' commercials, which feature the actress smiling broadly with chives stuck in her teeth. 'But that doesn't mean eating a big bowl of chives is just for breakfast. The American Chives Council recommends three heaping servings a day. The bigger the better. Get some chives in ya!' Despite the push, analysts predict that the chive industry will continue to struggle, citing the ongoing repercussions of the ACC's ill-fated 2005 split with the American Sour Cream Association."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:49 PM

May 29, 2008

5/29: The Rightroots Flex Their Muscles

Over the past few days, conservative bloggers have really proved their value in the GOP message machine. On Tuesday, a conservative blogger read a report about Barack Obama's Memorial Day speech and noticed that Obama's remarks about his uncle helping to liberate Auschwitz couldn't possibly be true, since Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. Other righty bloggers immediately began writing about Obama's false claim; the RNC issued a statement criticizing Obama; and eventually the Obama camp was forced to issue a correction (Obama's aides said that Obama's great-uncle was part of the U.S. brigade that liberated Buchenwald, not Auschwitz). The ensuing media buzz completely overshadowed the content of Obama's Memorial Day speech. Furthermore, as one liberal blogger sadly noted, it distracted the media from the potentially damaging news that John McCain's economics adviser had been working as a registered lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the same time that he was advising McCain on economic policy. This whole affair illustrates the crucial role that bloggers play as providers of free opposition research for political candidates.

DEM FIELD: The Clintonites Are Going Down Fighting

Hillary Clinton's online supporters are reacting to reports that DNC lawyers believe that FL and MI must lose half of their delegates:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "So with this leak we know what the DNC is planning for Saturday, seating the Florida and Michigan elected delegations with half votes each and probably seating all the super delegates. [...] What will Hillary Clinton do in response to this? My advice, FWIW, is to accept this and or seek some type of caucus to seat the remaining delegate strength in Florida and Michigan. Sort of say OK, I take the half of the delegates you have given Florida and Michigan, now let's give them a chance to get the other half. Of course, she could also ask for a revote in Michigan on August 5. Indeed, that is an option for the DNC, grant Florida the safe harbor it deserved according to the DNC, fully seat the Florida delegation, seat the Michigan delegation with half votes and let the other half be chosen in the August 5 Michigan primary already scheduled, which would likely be a formality anyway. This likely, indeed almost certainly, is not going to change the outcome of the race. But it will help the Democrats in November. Which should be the DNC's most important consideration now."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt argues that the superdelegates shouldn't necessarily endorse the pledged delegate leader: "Pledged delegates are only part of the equation in a superdelegate's decision who to vote for. Superdelegates were intended to act as brakes on a system run amok. That's what we have here, and it will be further derailed if rumors about only seating half of Florida's delegates are true. The pledged delegate total is one argument for nomination. It is not a qualifying event. By itself, a majority of pledged delegates is not enough to win the nomination. This year, in particular, the legitimacy of the pledged delegate count is uncertain."
• Mark Rubin wants to pressure the DNC to seat the full FL and MI delegations: "[I've been] told that the DNC is in big trouble financially, down to $3.5 million against $35 million for the Republicans. One of the best things anyone supporting the full seating of Florida and Michigan can do, is call the DNC, finance committee in Washington and let them know they will never get another dime now or in the future unless all the Florida and Michigan delegates [are] seated."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, who supports Obama, calls the report "an early defeat for Clinton": "The Clinton campaign won't like anything short of a full seating -- all of Michigan's 128 delegates -- with Obama getting zero delegates out of the Soviet-style, one-candidate election in Michigan. They won't be getting that."

Balloon Juice's John Cole, who also supports Obama, disagrees: "This is precisely the kind of ruling the Clinton camp wants. Seating only half the delegations per DNC rules will provide those in the fantasy land that is the Clinton camp the opportunity to file appeals, turn this into a credential fight, and allow them to fight bitterly all the way to the convention. Rather than ending this, this will assure us we will get more Florida 2000/Zimbabwe/Civil Rights gibberish from team Clinton over the next few months, as the Clinton team prepares to wrestle away the nomination somehow, anyway they can, at the convention. Or hope that 'something happens' in between now and then and the supers will abandon Obama. The only thing that will stop this is if the supers immediately swarm to Obama after the last vote on June 3rd, but I have seen nothing to indicate that will happen -- they have indulged Hillary's bullshit to date, why stop now? And even if they do rush over and put Obama over whatever new number the Clintons dream up, they still will not concede. They will continue campaigning, continue to make statements and raise money and tour the country and take potshots at Obama and suck oxygen out of the room and make her supporters more antagonistic towards Obama until he is officially the nominee at the convention. They don't care what the outcome is, this is about Hillary becoming President in 2008, and if that fails, in 2012."

CLINTON: She Was Against It Before She Was For It

Moulitsas joins The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson in criticizing the Clinton camp's "situational ethics": "Remember, Clinton supported the Michigan and Florida sanctions when she thought she'd coast to the nomination. And her main advisor, Harold Ickes, actually voted for those sanctions as a member of the DNC committee that levied them. But of course, neither Ickes nor Hillary could be bothered to uphold whatever democratic and feminist principles have magically appeared now that Clinton is desperately grasping at straws for the nomination. People were freaking out over the RFK stuff, but really, the most infuriating part of this campaign is Clinton's lack of intellectual honesty. The shifting rationales. The constantly moving goal posts. The disrespect for rules and the intelligence of the public. Its rank dishonesty and purposefully flawed readings of history. In short, the bullshit we've been subjected to the past four months. Had there been some intellectual consistency, then fine. But the 'against it before it was politically necessary to be for it' bullshit has been unbearable."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen agrees with Moulitsas: "I don't necessarily blame Clinton backers for trying to help Clinton out at the [DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee] meeting on Saturday, but I am curious how many of them are demonstrating because they're genuinely outraged over the dispute between the DNC and two state parties over convention delegates or because they're hoping to give their favored candidate an edge. [...] If we give the protestors the benefit of the doubt, and accept that they're outraged because of the DNC's punishment of Florida and Michigan, I have a couple of follow-up questions. How many of the protestors were outraged when the punishment was originally made last year, before we knew who won the non-binding primaries? How many denounced Hillary Clinton for saying these votes wouldn't count? How many protested some of Clinton's top aides for playing a direct role in making the decision against Florida and Michigan in the first place? How many criticized the 12 Clinton supporters on the DNC Rules Committee who voted to strip these two states of their entire slate of delegates? How many said anything at all when it was just a matter of democratic principles, unrelated to any specific candidate or campaign?"

Meanwhile, MyDD's Josh Orton objects to the notion that the controversy surrounding the FL and MI delegations is analogous to the disputed FL 2000 election: "The 2000 'election' in Florida remains one of our country's saddest and profound moments of disenfranchisement in recent history. Why? Because nearly all existing legal precedent was ignored for political convenience, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The comparison to this year's primary falls flat -- besides being within the scope of party procedure, in this case the rules and precedents were actually followed."

OBAMA: Tired Of Gotcha Politics

Liberal bloggers are slamming conservative bloggers and the RNC for attacking Obama after the IL senator mistakenly asserted that his great uncle helped liberate Auschwitz (Obama's aides said that he intended to refer to Buchenwald, not Auschwitz):

• Crooks and Liars' Steve Benen: "Obama said his uncle had liberated one Nazi concentration camp, when in fact, his uncle had liberated a different Nazi concentration camp. [...] There was no obvious intention to deceive anyone, a presidential candidate simply misidentified the specific camp his mother's brother liberated. An innocent mistake, barely worth raising an eyebrow over. And yet, Republicans instantly turned the Outrage Machine to 11, as if Obama had claimed to have liberated Buchenwald himself. [...] If Obama's uncle hadn't served in the military, or hadn't even left the country during World War II, I could see this being more embarrassing and newsworthy. Ronald Reagan, for example, boasted that he'd served in an Army unit that filmed recently liberated death camps. In reality, Reagan never left the U.S. during the war. That's controversial. Obama's inconsequential error was utterly meaningless. That this became a huge deal to the Republican Attack Machine highlights just how far off the edge these poor schmoes have fallen."
• Menachem Rosensaft, the head of the International Network of Children of Holocaust Survivors, writes a diary on the Huffington Post: "I never thought I'd see the day when the Holocaust would be used as a tool for 'gotcha' politics. But over the last two days, we have seen John McCain's supporters at the Republican National Committee and at Fox News launch tasteless attacks on Barack Obama. In their attempt to score a few political points, they have diminished the experience of those who suffered and died at Buchenwald, and disrespected the service of the heroic American troops who liberated them. [...] To those who continue to use this story to damage Barack Obama, I have a simple question: have you no shame? You attempts to diminish his uncle's service for your own political gain says a lot more about you than it does about Barack Obama."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "The Right-Wing Chorus, always focused on the 'BIG' things literally, burned up the internet over Obama mixing up Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps. I'm going to to go out on a limb here and declare they were both hell-on-earth. But, somehow this minor error -- of a type that each of the candidates make regularly in some fashion the more they speak during the never-ending campaign, has to them suddenly become the biggest story EVAH! [...] Is there no end to the rings the right-wing clown show will add?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan thinks GOPers are pushing this story in order to portray Obama as gaffe-prone and unfit for the Presidency: "Obama is one of the least gaffe-prone politicians out there. The conscious effort to create this image -- fostered in part by [Charles] Krauthammer's dog-whistle -- is part of a campaign to define Obama as unready for high office. Resist this deceptive meme. It's propaganda."

Mark Kleiman thinks conservatives won the news cycle:

"Yesterday we learned:

1. That John McCain's chief economic adviser was a lobbyist (and is still a Vice-Chairman) of a bank that's loaded up with possibly worthless paper and hip-deep in criminal activity (facilitating evasion of U.S. taxes by rich Americans through the services of its 'private banking' arm).

2. That it wasn't Barack Obama's uncle who helped liberate one of the Nazi death camps; it was his grand-uncle. And that the camp wasn't Auschwitz, but Buchenwald.

Guess which one made news? It's not that the press actually bought the silly Republican spin that Obama is 'gaffe-prone'; but they let the RNC catch them up in the argument, distracting them from the Gramm story, which should have been devastating to McCain. We need to be relentless on calling the media on this b.s."

OBAMA II: Pants On Fire

Undeterred, some conservative bloggers continue to portray Obama's Auschwitz mistatement as a deliberate lie, not a gaffe:

• RedState's streiff: "We've grown used to the utterly pathological disregard for the truth of the Clintons. All of them. From her story of being named for Sir Edmund Hillary to her purported attempt to join the Marines to her using Sinbad and Chelsea [Clinton] as human shields to protect herself from sniper fire in Tuzla we've all come to expect Hillary -- and Bill -- to lie to us. Not for any particular reason. They are professionals. They lie just to stay in practice. Now we're seeing the same behavior on the part of Barack Obama."
• AmSpec Blog's Lawrence Henry: "Obama is not making 'gaffes.' He's been a myth-maker from the first. Isn't that the message of his books? He is basically nothing, with a mother who's a total flake and a father who's as absent as a father can be, no real other family to depend on. So he uses his brains (he has some), and he turns to literature of various kinds to assemble an identity. In a big part of that identity construction, as John Derbyshire has written, Obama gets 'hung up on his negritude.' And for all the rest, it's a Chinese menu, with two from Column A and one from Column B. He's Gatsby, he's the King (or the Duke) from Huckleberry Finn, he's Philip Roth's carefully constructed professor from The Human Stain. He is, in short, a creature of American literature, not really an organically developed person at all. He is an exemplar to the max of identity politics, or all politics is persona."

Other conservative bloggers think Obama's mistatement was a result of his ignorance of history:

• Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson: "I've written several times that I suspect Barack Obama of being almost completely ignorant of world history. All it would take to reveal the depths of this ignorance would be a few serious historical questions from a reporter who isn't blinded by the messiah's halo -- but nobody seems to care."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Back in their school days, John McCain was a dreadful student where Barack Obama was a spectacular one. But for an aspiring commander-in-chief, John McCain knows what you have to know. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Barack Obama doesn't."

OBAMA III: Iraq Trippin'

Conservative bloggers are joining McCain in criticizing Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I suppose one can argue about the value of seeing the situation on the ground with one's own eyes, but wouldn't the architect of a withdrawal want to see some of the circumstances himself? [...] And isn't Obama vulnerable to the argument that a man who's pledged to meet unconditionally, one-on-one, face-to-face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really ought to meet at least once one-on-one with Gen. David Petraeus?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "If Obama hopes to retain respect from our armed forces and their leaders, he will have to visit Iraq before he abandons the country. But, depending on the situation in Iraq and what Obama learns on a visit, he could lose this respect if he abandons the country following a visit."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Isn't it obvious that going to Iraq would be a major political risk for Obama? According to the Military Times poll, more than 60% of active-duty servicemen believe the US is either 'somewhat' or 'very' likely to succeed in Iraq. But less than 20% of them think 'the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops' in 2 years or less. That suggests that a sizable number of the troops on the ground think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would amount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Imagine if a soldier, marine, or guardsman were to express that opinion to Obama's face, in public, on the ground in Iraq."

After Obama said that he was considering visiting Iraq, conservative bloggers portrayed him as a pushover:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Just so we're clear, a 'political stunt' would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt. [...] He's doing the right thing so I'll resist the hackiest spin on this ('if he's this much of a pushover for McCain, what will he be like against...'), but I am sincerely surprised that he'd bow to this sort of pressure so quickly. His flag-pin stance is stupid but there's a certain ballsiness to it if he's willing to stick with it and absorb the political consequences because he believes in it. Which...he isn't. Same here with him backing down after initially objecting to an Iraq trip..."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Obama may now go to Iraq after a bunch of right wing bloggers piled on his refusal to go with McCain. Obama backtracked on his Aushwitz story after a bunch of right wing bloggers piled on. Obama caved on his unilateral meetings after a bunch of right wing bloggers piled on. Obama caved on Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright after a bunch of right wing bloggers piled on. Obama caved on...well the list goes on and on. Every time right wing bloggers pile on an Obama statement or misstatement, Obama caves. If he'll kowtow to us right wing bloggers and cave so easily, how much faster will he cave to folks like [Hugo] Chavez and Ahmadinejad?"

OBAMA IV: The Webb Paradox

Liberal bloggers continue to debate the idea of VA Sen. Jim Webb as Obama's running mate:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller criticizes the idea of Webb as Obama's VP: "Webb has not been a progressive Senator. On Iraq, he has voted to fund the war, [and] on retroactive immunity for telecom companies, he sided with the telecom companies. [...] To be sure, his GI Bill is important, and he is a far better public servant than George Allen. I like Webb, I respect Webb, but I do not believe that Webb shares our values. A VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and Webb will in all likelihood not be a progressive President. What's left is Webb's political ability to bring white working class voters to the Democratic side. And this is where the Webb-as-VP talk really falls apart. While Webb is seen as a candidate who appeals to the Appalachian white working class vote...there's actually no evidence he does. Today, he's far less popular in Virginia than [Sen.] John Warner, with a net disapproval rating among males of six points and eight points among gun owners. [...] Still, if he got elected in Virginia in 2006, who cares? Surely he can bring the same bevy of white working class voters he brought in 2006 to the Obama ticket in 2008, right? Well, no. His 2006 victory was based on a coalition of white liberals and African-Americans. Both his primary and general victories saw his marginal vote runups in Northern Virginia counties."
• TAPPED's Robert Kuttner defends Webb: "Kathy G. makes some devastating points in her list of all the reasons why Jim Webb's past sins disqualify him from being Barack Obama's running-mate (also see Ezra [Klein]'s article on the same topic). Webb evidently is a sexist pig. And in addition to all the 'women can't fight' statements over the years, as recently as 2000 he was calling affirmative action 'state-sponsored racism.' And in 2004 he circulated mendacious tripe about those who opposed the Vietnam War, including John Kerry. On the other hand, Webb is singing a very different song today. He came from nowhere to narrowly beat George Allen, Jr., mainly because along the campaign trail, after listening to ordinary Virginians, he metamorphosed from a Reagan Democrat into a New Deal Democrat, and won the votes of lots of good old boys (and gals) who were suffering economically. He is now just one of six members of the Senate Progressive Caucus. All of which puts me in mind of Michael Kinsley's astute observation that the right welcomes converts while the left considers them unreliable. [...] I, for one, believe in redemption. And I have to ask, how long is the statute of limitations for past sins of converts?"
• Conservative blogger Ross Douthat also defends Webb: "Were I Obama, I would look at the left-liberal case against Webb -- on the grounds that he's too anti-feminist, too pro-military, too skeptical about affirmative action and immigration, too hostile to Hollywood and academia -- as an advertisement for the pick. An Obama-Webb ticket wouldn't send just a message that people who share the same ethno-cultural identity as Jim Webb can have a home in the Democratic Party, the way Kerry and Edwards were supposed to show that veterans and Southerners could too be Democrats; it would send a message that people with Webb's views can have a home in the party. It would lend substance to Obama's thus-far insubstantial claim to be something other than a party-line liberal, and in the process it would have the potential to achieve at the national level what the Congressional Dems have successfully done at the local level - namely, expand the definition of what it means to be a Democrat."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers are discussing how to approach Obama's VP decision philosophically:

• Ezra Klein: "There's one school of thought which says Obama has real weaknesses, and he should admit them and choose a VP who compensates. [...] There's another school of thought -- and this is partly the direction in which I lean -- which says don't admit those weaknesses. Don't act like an 'other' who needs a compensating VP. Just as Obama has aggressively refused to view his foreign policy as a vulnerability, just as he doubled down on his opposition to the gas tax holiday, he should double down on the strengths of his candidacy. He should pick another obvious change agent, someone young and either personally or demographically exciting. I lean towards a woman in this spot, but there are lots of ways to meet those requirements. But they require a candidate who amplifies Obama's strength more than mitigates his weaknesses. It's the model of [Bill] Clinton choosing [Al] Gore -- another young Southerner -- rather than Kerry choosing [John] Edwards or [George W.] Bush choosing [Dick] Cheney."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks people are over-emphasizing electoral considerations: "One really ought to look at the selection of a Vice Presidential nominee as something where the substantive merits are important. Of our eleven postwar vice presidents ([Richard] Nixon, [Lyndon] Johnson, [Hubert] Humphrey, [Spiro] Agnew, [Gerald] Ford, [Nelson] Rockefeller, [Walter] Mondale, [George H.W.] Bush, [Dan] Quayle, Gore, and Cheney), four have gone on to become president and three more have gone on to become a major party presidential nominee. That's by no means a perfect batting record, but generically speaking becoming vice president is the best means of going on to become president. Under the circumstances, it seems foolish to advocate for someone or other purely on the grounds of political expediency."

MCCAIN: He's Being Advised By Who?

Now that ex-Sen. Phil Gramm is under scrutiny for representing the Swiss bank UBS while providing McCain with economic advice, liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's relationship with Gramm:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "How exactly does John McCain answer the question of what he's doing handling Phil Gramm's Enron and UBS baggage in exchange for highly dubious economic advice? Is this what we could expect McCain to foist on the rest of the country -- a man who helped run energy and banking policy in the ground while he and his family pocketed millions? Is this the ethical distance from lobbyists McCain trumpeted while using the UBS lobbyist Gramm for banking and economic policy crafting advice? Using a lobbyist and officer of a troubled bank to craft banking policy in which it has an interest while, at the same time, using him to stump for you on the campaign trail? Does the word 'self-dealing' come to mind for you, too?"
• Mother Jones' David Corn: "Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hillary, Feminism, and Manly Presidents

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"Female candidates, especially female presidential candidates, have a double standard working against them. Ironically, I think Hillary Clinton's campaign has worsened this problem. Hers has been the campaign constantly defining the job of president as 'commander-in-chief' -- a more militaristic conception of the role. While Barack Obama has tried to reframe who is more qualified to conduct foreign policy as a question of judgment, Clinton has insisted that it's a question of toughness. That's a metric where she's arguably superior to Obama, but John McCain is clearly superior to her. (And, for that matter, Genghis Khan would be superior to McCain. It's a dumb metric.)

On other intangible ways to think about presidents, Clinton's campaign has defined the proper role of president in ways that are more conducive to male candidates. Men are usually going to appear more 'authentic' than women shooting guns or knocking back shots in a bar. Clinton advisor James Carville declared at one point, 'If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two.' This way of defining the proper character and style of a president may have been helpful to Hillary Clinton's efforts to beat Obama, but they're harmful to female candidate in general. To the extent that presidential qualities are defined as 'manly,' women have a harder time competing. Obama is trying to move the frame of debate away from the manly-tough guy stuff, but Hillary keeps dragging it back down."

LEST WE FORGET: Rachael, Michelle, and Whoopi

Radar's Sarah Horne:

"Rachael Ray's fashion sense can best be described as Mom Jeans meets bottom-of-the-barrel TJ Maxx. So when she showed up in a Dunkin' Donuts ad sporting a black and white keffiyeh, it was perhaps understandable that there'd be some sort of confusion. Had America's favorite midget chef suddenly ditched the mall and headed to Urban Outfitters in the throes of some kind of hipster fit? Michelle Malkin fumed, and not because she thought it looked retarded. The scarf, said Malkin, 'has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,' instead of, you know, Yummo! donuts and overly sweetened iced lattes.

Earlier this week, the coffee chain took the ad in question out of circulation, claiming it never intended any jihadist 'symbolism.' But while conspiracy theorists remain skeptical (Would you like an explosive belt with that Coolata?), there's buzz from some corners that suggests Dunkin' Donuts' actions were ill-advised. This morning on The View, Whoopi Goldberg claimed that the scarf also looked like a fashionable version of the Jewish prayer shawl, and that pulling the ad could be perceived as an anti-Jewish act.

We say, let Ray have her keffiyeh. If the Rachael Ray terrorist chic look was loosed on the wider world, the posers of Bushwick and Silver Lake might finally reject this semi-annoying fashion trend. If the perky chef is wearing them, they're surely, finally, thankfully over. (Take note, Olsen twins)."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:39 PM

May 28, 2008

5/28: Debating History

Although Hillary Clinton was the focus of the liberal blogosphere's ire this past weekend for her remarks about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, she has once again faded into the woodwork (temporarily) as bloggers concentrate on the Barack Obama-John McCain battle. Conservative bloggers are hammering Obama for his false assertion that his great-uncle was part of the U.S. brigade that helped liberate Auschwitz (Obama's aides say that Obama intended to refer to Buchenwald, not Auschwitz). While some conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of deliberately lying in an effort to pander to Jewish voters, most accept the Obama camp's explanation that the IL senator simply confused one Nazi concentration camp for another. However, righty bloggers see this incident as further evidence that Obama has a "shallow knowledge" of history. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue their ongoing effort to link McCain with lobbyists and George W. Bush.

OBAMA: Creating His Own Bushisms

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama as ignorant after he mistakenly asserted that his great-uncle was part of the U.S. brigade that helped liberate Auschwitz (Obama's aides said that he intended to refer to Buchenwald, not Auschwitz):

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I am rather forgiving on war memories, and if the uncle or Obama got a few facts wrong about where he served I am not one to grouse. However, Obama and his staff get a lot of history wrong (and a lot of other stuff wrong, too). Isn't Obama supposed to be highly educated, sophisticated, a great intellect? Shouldn't the media's bar be higher for this brilliant leader of the new age of politics? Had it been Hillary Clinton or Al Gore who made all these errors, we would have heard by now that the candidate was a fabulist. Had it been John McCain it would have been a sign of senility. Had it been George W. Bush..oh, you can imagine. So maybe Obama's gaffes are a sign of inexperience and shallow knowledge? Nah, couldn't be."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "The mangling of facts here isn't a lie, just another misstatement and another surprising sign of Obama's historical ignorance. [...] Obama undeniably has a high level of cognitive ability. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that he either has read few books or retained very little from the books he read. Either that or he's spent his time reading books that don't help him understand history and won't help him carry out his tasks as president. [...] Obama has made a habit of coming across like a man who does't know what he's talking about. That's bothersome enough, but what's more worrisome still is how comfortable he is with not knowing what he's talking about, and how convinced he seems that his rhetorical flourishes will obscure his ignorance. That strategy may work on the campaign trail, but it certainly won't help him govern."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This demonstrates again that Barack Obama has a gaffe problem, especially when speaking extemporaneously. If he's going to tell personal anecdotes on the campaign trail, he'd better demonstrate a passable knowledge of the subject matter when he does so."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's reference to Auschwitz wasn't a gaffe, but a deliberate lie designed to win over Jewish voters:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "First, Obama was making up stories about his birth to strengthen his ties to the civil rights movement. Now, it looks like he's revised some family history about his uncle to get closer to the Jewish community he's been having problems with."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel describes Obama's statement as "so profane that it borders on evil itself": "In a blatantly dishonest attempt to simultaneously pander to the military and Jewish votes, [Obama] decided to take ownership of the ending of the Holocaust and the liberation of Auschwitz. [...] Now, Barack Obama has never been known for having the best grasp of history, geography, or international affairs -- something that he demonstrates in nearly every speech and at nearly every event. However, a statement of that sort, while possibly attributable to sheer, monumental ignorance, rings far more of blatantly dishonest revisionism, complete with a healthy disrespect for the intelligence of his veteran and Jewish target audiences. [...] This capitalizing on the horror of the Holocaust and the Auschwitz liberation is, of course, inexcusable for countless reasons. The lying about familial involvement, though, is so profane that it borders on evil itself."

OBAMA II: A Non-Story

Liberal bloggers are defending Obama for his Auschwitz gaffe:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[On Monday], Obama mentioned that his uncle, Charlie Payne, helped to liberate the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz. The Republicans were hoping that they could catch Obama lying -- that maybe Obama never had an uncle who helped liberate the Jews in Europe. Well, in fact, Obama's uncle (his grandmother's brother) helped liberate the Nazi camp at Buchenwald (Obama mixed up Auschwitz and Buchenwald). So the Republicans (and a few Hillary fans emailed me as well) are trying to allege...what exactly? That Obama's family did in fact help save the Jews in Europe, but Obama got the name of the camp he liberated wrong? Okay. I'm not quite sure how that gives us any insight into Obama (other than his uncle is a hero). [...] I hope the Republicans keep talking about this story every day between now and the elections so every Jew in America learns that Obama's uncle helped liberate the Jews in Europe. Oh, and extra points for reminding Americans that Obama is a 'real American' too -- he has family who fought in WWII. If that's the best shot the Republicans have, well God bless them and give 'em a bigger microphone."
• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "While talking about the service of his grandfather and uncle in WWII at an event, [Obama] said that his uncle had been devastated by the effects of war, particularly after helping to liberate Auschwitz. A minor mistake by Obama because it was, in fact, the Soviets that liberated Auschwitz. His uncle served in the 89th Infantry Division, which liberated Buchenwald, another concentration camp in Germany. [...] The Obama staff issued a correction the following day. [...] Not content with this correction, the RNC is attempting to pounce on the non-story and try to manufacture a brouhaha. Do they really want to go there? The Bush wagon that McCain's campaign is irrevocably hitched to is nothing more than a long series of gaffes, many with dire consequences. Remember the 'slam dunk intelligence' on Iraq? Those 'sixteen words' in the State of the Union address? You know, the gaffe that our soldiers are still dying for today? Remember the time when McCain and Bush partied together in San Diego, sharing a birthday cake....all while New Orleans was drowning? That was some blunder, indeed. And, of course the RNC would be sent to do the dirty work on this one. We all know that the last person wanting to draw attention to 'stumbles' would be John 'the gaffe' McCain. It seems like only yesterday that his aides were rushing in to correct him on the difference between Sunni and Shia....over and over, again."

However, pro-Clinton bloggers on the left are joining pro-McCain bloggers on the right in criticizing Obama:

• Taylor Marsh: "Obama Gaffes Multiply....And people wonder why Senator Obama isn't garnering raves from the Jewish community. They don't know him well enough to give this a pass. [...] Getting the concentration camp wrong reveals a lack of sensitivity to an issue and a community that doesn't know Senator Obama well in the first place."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "[Obama] makes a lot of mistakes about his family history. It's like he's retelling stories he's heard from third parties, including campaign staff who looked the stuff up. Maybe, aside from his grandparents with whom he lived for several years, he didn't know their side of the family that well -- including the great uncle who was one of the first at Buchenwald. In other words, he's telling stories he's learned on the campaign trail rather than ones he grew up hearing. [...] There's no requirement in my mind that a presidential candidate have close family ties. But if a candidate is going to tout his family values and family history as a reason voters should view him as 'just like us,' his stories should at least be genuine, not something he learns from campaign staffers."

OBAMA III: Those Who Cannot Remember The Past...

Conservative bloggers continue to argue that Obama is ignorant of U.S. history:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "As Charles Krauthammer noted last week, since the Democrats' CNN/YouTube debate last summer, Barack Obama has been touting the wisdom of presidential meetings with America's sworn enemies during his first year in office. In Portland on May 18, Obama placed President [John F.] Kennedy's summit conference with [Nikita] Khrushchev in Vienna as one of the presidential meetings that led to the triumph of the United States in the Cold War. By all accounts, however, including Kennedy's own, the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna was a disaster. [...] Given the record, what are we to make of Obama's assertions regarding the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit? It seems to me that there are only two alternatives. Either Obama is familiar with the history and is deliberately exploiting the ignoriance of his supporters, or he has no idea what he is talking about. I incline to the latter view."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama's success at Harvard Law has persuaded most credential-driven MSMers that he is very, very smart, but a facility with the ways of law school and law exam test taking do not an educated man make. Because legal education values certain skills, success at it says almost nothing about a law student's wisdom or grasp of history. What is becoming obvious is that Senator Obama simply doesn't know a lot of what we take for granted in presidential nominees -- an understanding of how America came to be and why it is so special, so exceptional."

OBAMA IV: Battling The Webb Swoon

Although VA Sen. Jim Webb is a popular VP candidate in the liberal blogosphere, several liberal bloggers are arguing that Webb would be a poor choice as Obama's VP:

• Kathy G.: "Given Webb's shaky campaigning skills, his well-documented history of extremely poor political judgments, his johnny-come-lately status as a Democrat, his questionable ability to attract votes, and above all, his horrible record on gender, I do not think James Webb would be a wise choice for vice president. It's interesting to me that, though I don't know of a single woman who thinks Webb should be Obama's running mate, I know many men who positively swoon over the man. To the legions of Webb fanboys on the left, I'll say this: dudez, this race is not about your illusions about how an Obama-Webb ticket could somehow miraculously heal centuries' worth of racial wounds, or your fantasies about how Webb could somehow bring that all-important white working class male back to the fold. Most especially, it's not about the choice of the ultra-manly Webb as a vicarious endorsement of your masculinity."
• Ezra Klein: "James Webb has been a Democrat for about 30 minutes. A decade or so ago, his gender politics were, to say the least, retrograde, and his outlook was still shot through with anger at the dirty fucking hippies who had turned on his comrades in the military. I have more respect for that position coming from a veteran like Webb than I do from a chickenhawk like [Dick] Cheney, but it still speaks of certain tensions he's got with portions of the party. Additionally, Webb has also endorsed some of the Vietnam, stab-in-the-back revisionism that's come out over the past few years, opposed [Bill] Clinton for being too soft China during the 1990s, and In 2000, endorsed George Allen for the Senate. All of which is to say, there's a lot about what James Webb thinks that we simply don't know. I just read the guy's book, and while I really loved it, and am convinced that he's an important politician in the Democratic Party, he's a bit of a complicated, idiosyncratic figure to elevate to standard-bearer level."
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "The risk of giving up a red state Senate seat has to create a strong presumption against [picking Webb as VP], and it just isn't the job for him. Under the circumstances, choosing someone with Webb's history of sexism seems like an especially bad idea. I have been skeptical that Clinton's supporters (as opposed to her staff) won't get over it if she's not on the ticket (which is good, because picking her has a lot of negatives), but surely many Clinton supporters wouldn't find Webb acceptable, and they'd have a point. Webb's past comments don't make him unacceptable as a red-state Senator, but in the wider universe of good VP candidates this should rule him out."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan defends the idea of Obama choosing Webb as his running mate: "It seems to me that the meme that is strongest against Obama is the usual Fox-[Karl] Rove culture war stuff, a way to make Obama seem un-American. Webb destroys that meme and remakes the landscape of the race in ways that hurt McCain. Webb is also as close to a Republican as any Democrat will get -- viscerally, culturally, temperamentally. I do think that avoiding a female backlash after Clinton's withdrawal makes sense. But I don't think it rules Webb out. If Obama is partly about healing the culture war -- and it's a key element of his appeal to independents -- then Webb is proof that he can bring cultural rivals into his team."

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison disagrees with Sullivan: "The selection of Webb validates the attack on Obama by acknowledging that there is some sort of liability or vulnerability that Obama had to balance out by choosing Webb. Choosing Webb is another way of saying, 'Yes, Democrats must have a military veteran with culturally conservative attitudes on their ticket in order to demonstrate their fidelity to the United States, which is otherwise suspect.' Selecting Webb and selecting him specifically because of what he represents, rather than what he can do, accepts the judgement that Obama's patriotism and American-ness need bolstering. This has the risk of being every bit as self-defeating and embarrassing as John Kerry's 'reporting for duty' moment at the national convention."

MCCAIN: Running For Bush's Third Term?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a Progressive Media USA report that finds that McCain voted with President Bush "100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007":

• Crooks and Liars' Logan Murphy: "McSame voted with George Bush 100% in 2008. [...] And yet there are still those in the media that call McSame a Maverick. That horse was put out to pasture long ago."
• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "John McCain voted with George W. Bush 100% of the time in 2008. 2007, however, was a particularly 'mavericky' year, as he only supported President Bush 19 out of every 20 times (95%). Therefore, if you subract 5% from 82% (or the % who think things are headed in the wrong direction), McCain was only taking us in the wrong direction about 78% of the time in 2007."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "On Friday, Todd [Beeton] alerted us to the fundraisers Bush was planning to attend for McCain -- and how they were scaled down and closed to press. Apparently the McCain campaign doesn't want video of Bush praising their candidate. [...] In simple political scorekeeping, every time McCain's people have to say, defensively, 'no no, he does sometimes disagree with the President,' it's a win for Obama. It's not an easy argument for McCain to make, especially considering that he voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and a full 100% of the time in 2008."

MCCAIN II: Compromised

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that McCain economics adviser/ex-Sen. Phil Gramm was working as a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS at the same time that he was advising McCain on economic policy:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As MSNBC reported, UBS deregistered Gramm as a lobbyist for the company on April 18th, though he continues to serve as a vice chairman of the bank. But that was fully a month after McCain's speech outlining his own approach to the [mortgage] crisis. Many of the lobbying connections the press has dug up on McCain have been embarassing. But I'm not sure any have really had teeth until this one. After all, how much does the average voter care that Charlie Black represented a lot of foreign dictators? A stench, yes? But finding out that McCain had a major subprime lender bank lobbyist whispering in his ear when McCain told the public that it was basically tough luck if they lost their houses?"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "It just defies belief that McCain would have, as his main economic advisor and one of the people responsible for his plan to deal with the mortgage crisis, someone who was a paid lobbyist for a bank that was heavily involved in that crisis, a firm that has just advised some of its employees not to travel to the US for legal reasons, and that stands to gain or lose a lot depending on what the federal government decides to do about it. What's next: the revelation that McCain's policy on Iran is being written by a lobbyist for the makers of cruise missiles? [...] My best guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that there are certain things about himself that McCain is so sure of that he does not see how he could ever be challenged on them. He knows that he is a man of honor, so why would he need to keep people with obvious conflicts of interest away from his campaign -- even when he is taking their advice on topics that, by his own admission, he doesn't know much about?"

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' smintheus criticizes McCain's lobbyist connections: "McCain is up to his ears in lobbyists...including several registered as agents of foreign governments. Lobbyists raise much of his cash, they staff his campaign and serve as advisers. Some of his lobbyist-staffers ostensibly are on leaves of absence from their firms while they work without pay from McCain, while some others may in fact still be drawing lobbyist salaries. [...] It's hard to avoid the conclusion that McCain's ability to survive the Republican primaries is due to lobbyist support. His campaign is entirely a construct of his lobbyist pals."

MCCAIN III: Holy Joe

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman for agreeing to speak at a summit hosted by the controversial pastor John Hagee. McCain recently repudiated Hagee's endorsement after it was revealed that Hagee had described Adolf Hitler as an agent of God. The Huffington Post's Max Blumenthal reports:

"Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. [...] As a key McCain surrogate who McCain may select as his running mate, Lieberman must know why Hagee is no longer welcome on the so-called Straight Talk Express. So why the silence? Why won't Lieberman, who is married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors, end his relationship with Hagee as well? Why, in apparent defiance of the McCain campaign, does he remain scheduled to headline Hagee's upcoming summit?"

• Marshall: "If John Hagee is too big a whacko for John McCain, why is Joe Lieberman headlining Hagee's annual shindig in July?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "When will top McCain supporter Joe Lieberman denounce and reject the extremist Pastor Hagee? And when will McCain denounce Lieberman?"
• Crooks and Liars' Jon Perr: "When it comes to Pastor John Hagee, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have a lot in common. Both men addressed the 2007 convention of Hagee's organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI). McCain and Lieberman each voiced support for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But while John McCain aggressively sought Hagee's endorsement, only Joe Lieberman compared the Texas pastor to Moses. And judging by his agreement to speak at CUFI's upcoming 2008 conference, Joe Lieberman still believes it."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "We know that John McCain eventually became too embarrassed to continue his relationship with Apocalyptic Nutbar Pastor John Hagee. But as usual, if there's lowly but politically-expedient groveling that needs doing, Senator Joe Lieberman is available and up to the task. [...] It's disgusting enough to have to hear Lieberman say anything at all. But to have to hear him heap praise on McCain's leavings, I just can't stomach. The idea that he'll be there for a love-fest with the guy who says Hitler was doing God's work, though? That's just too damned much."
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "While even John McCain has finally rejected and denounced John Hagee (you know, the rabidly bigoted preacher dude whose endorsement McCain actively and humiliatingly sought despite his recent lies stating otherwise?), John McCain's good buddy Joe Lieberman is still embracing the guy and all he stands for. [...] I think we can safely say that Holy Joe just zapped any chance he had of getting the running mate slot on John Sidney McCain III's general-election ticket. He can wave buh-bye to any hopes of a Cabinet post, too."
• Tje Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Ben Smith explained recently that Hagee's support for Israel is 'rooted in the belief that the Jewish state will -- soon -- be the site of Armageddon,' and his 'brand of Christian Zionism closely links support for Israel to the end of the world and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity.' [...] So, it's not that Hagee loves Israel, so much as he foresees a blood-soaked war in the Middle East that leads to Jesus' return, at which point the Jews who survive will become Christians. Lieberman is not only comfortable with all of this, but is even willing to headline one of Hagee's events?"
• Atrios: "The alliance between right wing Jews and Christian lovers of Israel until it is destroyed in a fiery apocalypse and all the Jews go to hell has always been a wee bit puzzling, but one would've thought that asserting that the holocaust was all part of God's divine plan would perhaps strain that relationship a bit."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Time Is Now

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Dems have an historic opportunity:

"The time period from 2009-2012, and maybe for two more years afterward, will probably be the only stretch of time over the next forty years when Democrats will have 60+ seats in the Senate. The odds of reaching 60 are pretty decent this year, since we are actually only 3-5% away in five different states from hitting 62 seats already. Now, throw in the 2010 picture, when Republicans will have to defend another 19 seats -- including eight freshman, [KY Sen.] Jim Bunning, [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, and [LA Sen.] David Vitter -- compared to only 14 seats and two freshman (one of whom is Barack Obama) for Dems, and the number could rise into the mid-sixties. Almost inevitably, this number will begin to drop in 2012, and probably drop below 60 for good in 2014. There is no way that we can keep winning two-thirds of all Senate campaigns indefinitely. I mean, the Iraq war will end at some point (I hope). [...]

This is our big moment to really pass progressive legislation. The opportunity is on par with FDR's first two terms, and the first three years of the LBJ's Presidency. While the Senate is mainly crawling mainly with New Dems instead of Progressives, this is still going to be our best opportunity for a loooong time, and we need to make sure we have the Presidency in order to make it happen."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Practices Looking-Off-Into-Future Pose

From The Onion:

"CHICAGO -- As the 2008 presidential election draws closer, Democrat Barack Obama has reportedly been working tirelessly with his top political strategists to perfect his looking-off-into-the-future pose, which many believe is vital to the success of the Illinois senator's campaign.

When performed correctly, the pose involves Obama standing upright with his back arched and his chest thrust out, his shoulders positioned 1.3 feet apart and opened slightly at a 14-degree angle, and his eyes transfixed on a predetermined point between 500 and 600 yards away. Advisers say this creates the illusion that Obama is looking forward to a bright future, while the downturned corners of his lips indicate that he acknowledges the problems of the present.

'The senator spends six hours a day gazing resolutely off into the distance,' said chief political strategist David Axelrod, who regularly analyzes video of the pose with Obama, pinpoints areas that need improvement, and makes necessary tweaks."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:54 PM

May 27, 2008

5/27: The Last Straw?

Hillary Clinton's invocation of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination while defending her decision to stay in the race further infuriated liberal bloggers, who were already disgusted by Clinton's campaign tactics. Bloggers called Clinton's remarks "disgusting" and "disqualifying" and declared that the NY senator "has ceased to be a viable, respectable candidate". Most bloggers find Clinton's rationale for staying in the race unpersuasive, and they're convinced that her recent conduct is detrimental to Barack Obama's fall prospects. For these reasons, many are eagerly awaiting her departure from the race.

CLINTON: And She's Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers slammed Clinton after she invoked the June '68 assassination of RFK in defending her decision to stay in the race:

"Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: 'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it,' she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race."

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "The willingness to say such a thing in a cheap effort to sway superdelegates is disgusting."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Senator Clinton is embarrassing herself and the Democratic Party. She has ceased to be a viable, respectable candidate and has, instead, become a ghoulish, desperate shell of her formerly strong and admirable self."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "She basically invoked her opponent's assassination. What else does she need to do to convince the superdelegates that she ain't exactly presidential material?"
• Oliver Willis: "She is fracking crazy. [...] Seriously, who says this sort of thing? Your average person doesn't say it, let alone somebody running for president. Hillary Clinton didn't lose this race because she was a victim of sexism. She lost this race because people are tired of her clawing for power and running over everything to do it."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "This is unacceptable. The United States has a history of profound political violence -- and the use of violence to oppress and coerce. And while I'm not quite willing to accept that Clinton spoke maliciously -- it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for flippantly referencing assassination, especially given the historic nature of Obama's campaign and our nation's grim history of racial oppression through violence. When Hillary Clinton speaks of our history, she is not reflecting academically or only in a vacuum -- her words and influence are real. To act otherwise is negligent, at best. [...] Even with the most charitable interpretation, I think her negligence is disqualifying."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "I really, really want to take Hillary at face value and not believe that she was actually using the prospect of an opponent's assassination to score political points -- hell, maybe the possibility of Obama getting shot simply didn't occur to her (it's certainly not on my mind very often). But even if her intentions were pure, it was still an incredibly careless and stupid thing to say."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It looks like many of Hillary Clinton's apologists and several political pundits claim that her assassination remarks can be explained because of fatigue. Perhaps. In fact, it's likely. But won't she be fatigued at 3 a.m. in the morning?"
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "If she really is trying to convince us that she's staying in in case Obama is assassinated that's nuts -- if he were assassinated she'd be the nominee almost certainly, whether she'd dropped out or not. And if that's not what she meant, why mention Kennedy's assassination at all? But really, this is just another example of throwing as much nonsense at the wall as possible and seeing what sticks. In order to stay in the race, Clinton needs to do whatever she can to hide the basic fact that there's virtually no way for her to win now. So distractions, like reminding voters that unexpected things like assassinations happen, are key. In this case, she went way way too far."

CLINTON II: Setting Off BS Detectors

In addition to criticizing Clinton's invocation of RFK's assassination, liberal bloggers are disputing her comparison of the '08 Dem primary to the '68 and '92 Dem primaries:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The difference between the current race and other previous campaigns that may have lingered on into June is that given this year's primary schedule there simply aren't enough delegates left at stake for future primaries to make a difference. If [Clinton] were holding out for a June primary in California that she thought would let her catch up, that'd be a very different story from the actual 'waiting for Puerto Rico' scenario we're currently in."
• Atrios: "The various historical comparisons the Clinton campaign is making are in the 'isn't it great that people are so stupid that they'll swallow this horseshit' category. It did not take her husband until June to effectively have the nomination, and the 1968 primary season started much later than this one. We've had little but dumb arguments like this from the Clinton campaign for some time. I'm not entirely sure if they're stupid enough to believe them, or if they just assume we're stupid enough to believe them. Either way I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted."
• Open Left's tremayne: "The other part of what [Clinton] said should also be scrutinized. She said her husband didn't secure the nomination in 1992 until mid-June when he won the California primary. This is wrong. Here are the facts: (1.) The 1992 primaries ended on June 2, 1992, a day earlier than this year. Several states, including California, had primaries that day. It was not mid-June. (2.) According to wikipedia: 'Clinton effectively won the Democratic Party's nomination after winning the New York Primary in early April.' (3.) Clinton's chief rival was Paul Tsongas who dropped out of the race in mid-May, 1992. (4.) According to polls, Clinton led in every remaining state except California where Jerry Brown was polling well (his home state). Brown was not going to catch Clinton for the nomination in any scenario. [...] Summary: Hillary Clinton's reference to 1968 was accurate (that campaign was still in doubt) but tacky. Her reference to Bill [Clinton]'s 1992 race was wrong on the facts."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "The call to drop out [is] premature by the standards of the 1992 and 1968 race. But [Clinton's] staying in the race has no precedent, since in both of those cases the race was not decided. It's not like Hubert Humphrey was waiting around in case someone went off and shot RFK, or Bill Clinton was hoping he could convince superdelegates to override the will of the voters in a clearly losing strategy. There were still primaries going on that could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race. 2004 is a better analogy. Did John Edwards or Howard Dean wait around, musing that perhaps John Kerry would be killed, even though he was clearly going to lock up the majority of the delegates? Of course not. They lined up behind the winner."

CLINTON III: The Netroots' Patience Is At An End

Liberal bloggers are strongly condemning Clinton's campaign tactics and arguing that she is hurting Obama's chances of defeating McCain:

• Moulitsas: "By now, we know that Hillary Clinton will do or say anything in her mad pursuit of power. It's her only motivation at this point, trumping concerns about party unity, this fall's elections, and even her family's legacy. It's sad, no doubt. But as much attention and outrage has been generated by the RFK references, I'm still ultimately more bothered by her willful and repeated distortions of truth. [...] Her distortions on things like Obama's electability, her 'only big states matter' b.s., her 'small states don't matter' b.s., her 'the only swing states are the ones I won primaries in' b.s., her 'I'm winning the popular vote' b.s., her 'I was for punishing Florida and Michigan and signed a letter to that effect, but now changed my mind because it's politically expedient' b.s., and her 'Obama can't win states in the fall in which [he] lost the primary' b.s. Her rank and willful dishonesty drives me up the wall, because while it may show that Clinton will do and say anything to win, it also shows that she'll use Karl Rove tactics to make it happen."
• Ezra Klein: "Clinton can, and should, finish the campaign. She has come too far at this point to drop out. The issue is the content of her continuing campaign. Were she running on her issues and blasting [John] McCain, most would probably think that a boon -- more free media for Democrats, more focused criticism of McCain. But what Clinton is actually doing is giving wildly misleading speeches trying to poison the well in Michigan and Florida, opportunistically telling the voters of two major states that a decision she supported until it become inconvenient is a reason to believe that Obama and the Party dismiss or seek to repress their votes, and only Clinton cares for their democratic rights. As a message, it's a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning. It doesn't help her win the nomination, but it makes the nomination worth a little bit less for the likely nominee."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want. Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war. I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither."
• BooMan: "Clinton's recent comments about hardworking white voters and the RFK assassination have not improved her perceived electability. She would do better to stop antagonizing Obama supporters and undecided supers, and to get some rest and lay low for a while, than to continue what even the Governor of her state sees as desperate tactics. As it is, she has already ruined her chances of being on the ticket as vice-president and is rapidly losing her chance to be the second choice candidate, should something tragic happen. So, if we are judging things by how they help Clinton, she has not been too successful lately. But if we are judging things by how they hurt Obama, she has been all too successful. For these reasons, it really appears that one of two things is the case. Either Clinton is somewhat unhinged and is engaged in self-destructive behavior, or she is actively undermining Obama's chances, not of winning the nomination, but of winning the election in November. And in either of these two cases, it is necessary for responsible people to ask her to drop out."
• Aravosis: "It's far past the time for quiet little conversations urging Hillary to play nice. She lost the right to ask for 'the benefit of the doubt' ten racist eruptions ago. Dean, [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Sen. Harry] Reid should tell Hillary that she has till Monday to gracefully exit the race, or Monday afternoon they are publicly endorsing Obama and calling on her to concede. And then, if she doesn't concede, Dean, Pelosi and Reid should publicly call on all the superdelegates to immediately pick a candidate, or else."
• Atrios: "I know I'm not alone in the League of Mostly Nonaligned Bloggers in being rather puzzled by Clinton supporters. I don't mean all people who supported her, but the ones who are still pushing for her candidacy. As far as I can tell they want her to be the candidate and really just don't care how that happens as long as it does. At this point only a drastic rule change combined with a massive shift in support from superdelegates even gets her close to the nomination. In another words, cheating combined with the smoke-filled room residents overturning the outcome of the primary process."

CLINTON IV: Stop Overreacting, People!

Pro-Clinton bloggers -- who comprise a small but vocal minority of liberal bloggers -- are defending their candidate:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Hillary is being treated unfairly here. The media and blog commenters are engaging in character assassination. She was making a historical statement on why she needn't drop out of the race by early June. Democratic nominations have gone past that before. Her emphasis was on the word 'June.' The leap that is required to think that her reference to the RFK assassination was in any way a statement or subliminal wish that it might happen to Obama is mind-boggling."
• Taylor Marsh: "What this obvious over-reaction to Hillary's RFK statement, for which she immediately apologized, has revealed is politically unseemly. It also shows how desperate the Obama camp is to stop Hillary's nomination hopes, given the onslaught of polls showing Hillary Clinton beats John McCain in November, while the 'presumptive nominee' cannot. [...] The Obama wing of the Let's Lose Another Election section of the Democratic Party simply couldn't wait to blast Clinton's comment across the web, complete with funereal implications. But in their frenzied commitment against all things Clinton they simply let slip they're freaked that Hillary might pull this off. [...] Overkill, meet backlash. Because all these feckless wonders are doing is further hardening Hillary supporters against any desire to support Obama if he actually does become the nominee. John McCain couldn't have asked for a bigger gift. Because note to the Obama team: You can't win without us."

OBAMA: Another Gaffe?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of lying after he said in his Memorial Day speech that his uncle was part of the American brigade that helped liberate Auschwitz:

• Purple Avenger: "In one of his more egregious and easily demonstrated lies...Obama has rewritten WWII history such that the allies liberated Auschwitz. [...] Of course it goes without saying that the media has thus far failed to call the Messiah on this obviously outrageous lie. Unless Obama's 'uncle' was serving in the Red Army, its a pretty safe bet he was many hundreds of miles from Auschwitz on its day of liberation."
• see-dubya: "Either Obama's uncle served in the Red Army, or he's spinning Clintonesque lies about Auschwitz to sell his government programs. [...] I think the Obamessiah just out Tuzla'd Hillary. The man is...nefarious."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Look, we all know Obama has a problem with Jewish voters and veterans, but trying to use the holocaust for political gain is sickening -- especially when it is a bold faced lie. [...] Auschwitz is in Poland. It was liberated by the Soviets on January 27, 1945, not by Americans. Obama's uncle was either part of the red army or Obama is, again, lying for political advantage. Given what we know already about Obama, either option is plausible, but I'm going with this being another lie. What's worse is that he is using the freaking Holocaust to both ingratiate himself with Jewish voters and veterans while using the lie to justify expanding a federal program. [...] Its no longer about Obama having no shame. This man has no class."

Several conservative bloggers are complaining that the media isn't devoting sufficient coverage to Obama's gaffes:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "ABC News' Jake Tapper points out that Barack Obama has been a 'one-man gaffe machine' [...] Remember all the righteous media huffing and puffing over John McCain's one 'Islamic extremist'/Al Qaeda gaffe? Well, it seems that it's taken several gaffes ('of consequence' as Tapper puts it) to prod the MSM into reporting that Barack misspeaks -- and on a fairly regular basis."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If the MSM would either A) be more forgiving of Republican officials who they don't like or B) be a little tougher on Democratic officials they do like, the world would be a better place. In this case, I don't think Barack Obama is deliberately lying, or trying to pull a fast one. It sounds like a family 'legend' in which the specific horrors of war witnessed by his uncle are mistaken as the years go by. It happens, and Obama only deserves the lightest of metaphorical slaps on the wrist for it. But it would help if his fans in the press actually paid attention to what he says."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Geraghty has the right read on Obama's proneness to gaffes. It's not that he shouldn't be indulged, it's that the press should be similarly indulgent of conservatives."

MCCAIN: Not Standing Up For Vets?

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for criticizing Sen. Jim Webb's GI Bill, which increases benefits for veterans:

• Digby mockingly paraphrases McCain's defense of his opposition to the GI bill: "We should be generous, but let's not go crazy. Those bastards who think they deserve to have the government pay for their college after just a few years in uniform simply don't deserve it. Sure, they may put themselves in the line of fire in Iraq or Afghanistan for a couple of tours and maybe they work for peanuts and their families are on food stamps while they do it. But that's no reason for them to cheat the taxpayers by taking a college scholarship when they are needed indefinitely in the war zones. They're nothing but a bunch 'o big babies."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "Even though John McCain receives full disability benefits from the Navy, had (and still has) the best hospital care taxpayer money can buy, and bagged a sugar momma who would pay his way for the rest of his natural life (assuming he lives up to the terms of the prenuptial agreement), he doesn't seem to believe that any other soldier should be quite so lucky as he."
• Yglesias: "It's worth noting that not only did John McCain oppose Jim Webb's bill expanding educational benefits for veterans, but he has a long track record of fairly stingy behavior on veterans' issues. As Hilzoy puts it 'McCain has supported basic appropriations for vets. However, when there are two competing proposals, he generally chooses the cheaper one, and often, when only one proposal to increase benefits is available, he opposes it.' One sort of wonders why this is. McCain's clearly not some kind of dogmatic libertarian, and he certainly seems to have a great deal of emotional attachment to the military. I believe the particular military family in which he grew up was a bit idiosyncratic in actually being composed of life-long military officers rather than veterans...as such. Or maybe he just takes very seriously the idea that we can't make the benefits too generous lest it undermine our ability to endlessly prolong the war in Iraq."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "His media-driven reputation notwithstanding, McCain's record on veterans' issues is actually something of an embarrassment. [...] I'm glad to see Obama take McCain to task on the issue. There's no reason to cede this ground to McCain at all."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Opportunity For Mischief?

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh wants to figure out a way to force Clinton onto the Dem ticket:

"Most people seem to think that the Vice Presidential selection process begins and ends with the Presidential nominee vetting candidates and making a decision. Not so! A Vice Presidential nominee will be selected by the presumptive Presidential nominee but for that candidate to become the nominee, he or she will have to be approved by the roll call of the delegates at the convention, just like the Presidential nominee. [...] Surely, there has to be some way that Republicans can engineer getting Hillary Clinton nominated at the Democratic National Convention as Vice President. Perhaps her husband can do it. Perhaps Joe Lieberman -- who is not a superdelegate because of his support for Senator John McCain, but presumably will still be allowed in Denver -- can do it. Perhaps Hillary can throw her own hat in the ring and force a vote even if Obama chooses someone else.

This is a can't-lose situation for Republicans. If Hillary wins, Obama will be seen as unable to control his own convention -- an expression of weakness that will be fatal in the fall by itself. Even if it isn't, the continued questions over how well Obama and Hillary will be able to work together if they are elected will cause the campaign to be off message many more times than it isn't. And if Hillary loses, her supporters outrage will be refreshed and will stay fresh during the fall, which may well serve to deprive Obama of the votes that he will need to win what may very well be a close race."

LEST WE FORGET: That Guy From That One Show Attempting Comeback

From The Onion:

"LOS ANGELES -- According to sources who caught the tail end of one of those Entertainment Tonight–type shows, that guy who used to be on that one show with all the ambulances is attempting a comeback by guest-starring as a waiter on one of those shows about rich ladies. 'Hey, it's that guy,' television viewer Gerard Lund said. 'Good for him. I remember I used to like him on that show about the karate doctor.' Lund added that he initially had trouble placing the guy because he got pretty fat in rehab."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

May 23, 2008

5/23: Can She Be Stopped?

Following Hillary Clinton's aggressive push for the seating of FL's and MI's delegates -- in which she invoked the civil rights movement, FL's 2000 recount, and the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe -- liberal bloggers are denouncing her conduct in some of their harshest language to date. Markos Moulitsas calls Clinton's behavior "yet another nail in the coffin of what used to be Bill and Hillary's positive legacy to the party," while Ezra Klein accuses Clinton of "pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat [Barack] Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination." But how can liberal bloggers stop Clinton from doing (in their view) further damage to Obama's fall prospects? Arianna Huffington suggests that her readers "stop yelling at Hillary to stand down and start yelling at the superdelegates to stand up," arguing that the supers could end the nominating process if enough of them endorsed Obama. However, it doesn't appear likely that superdelegates will endorse Obama en masse anytime soon -- at least not before the much-anticipated DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st.

CLINTON: Estranged

Liberal bloggers continue to decry Clinton's recent rhetoric about FL and MI:

• Ezra Klein: "It's hard to overstate the cynicism of Clinton's effort to equate the DNC's decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates to the Florida recount, Zimbabwe's brutal 'elections,' the fight for women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement. [...] She's now pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination. She will do this by convincing voters in Florida and Michigan that his campaign has wronged them and should be severely punished. It's an attempt to poison the well, to deny his campaign 44 electoral votes, or about 1/6th the total needed to win. That's a take I've resisted for a long time, but it's the only plausible explanation left. The Obama campaign has expressed a willingness to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, and do so largely as the Clinton campaign wants. Yet Clinton continues to compare a procedural decision she supported to Zimbabwe and Birmingham. She continues to sow resentment and anger against the likely Democratic nominee over a decision she supported. Where I once was solidly dismissive of the idea that Clinton was setting herself up for a 2012 run, now I'm agnostic. In any case, it's clear she's trying to set Obama up for a 2008 loss."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign. Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle -- first principles -- on par with the great voting rights struggles of history. There's no longer any question that she's going to win the nomination. The whole point of the popular vote gambit was to make an argument to super-delegates. And that's fine since that's what super-delegates are there for -- to make the decision by whatever measure they choose. But they've made their decision. The super delegates are breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. They simply don't buy the arguments she's making. [...] What she's doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she's gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her -- a belief many won't soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there's every reason to think she doesn't even believe in."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Yesterday I mocked Clinton's assertion that her battle is somehow akin to the civil rights struggle (as well as suffrage, Zimbabwe, and Florida 2000. Today, it doesn't seem so funny. [...This is] yet another nail in the coffin of what used to be Bill and Hillary's positive legacy to the party. She is now being openly mocked across the media and political spectrum. But I'm sure mentioning that is 'sexist', and that everyone criticizing the joke her campaign has become is sexist as well."
• The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "Hillary's rhetoric of the past 24 hours has gone from conciliatory to cataclysmic, turning on a high-speed dime like some UFO over the Florida swamps. An awful lot of Democrats are shocked and outraged at her use of civil rights rhetoric over the primary dispute, especially after winning two primaries with the help of some white voters who admitted their choice was influenced by race. [...] She knows these arguments won't sway the superdelegates to give her the nomination. What she's doing now is showing the Obama team and the Party's leaders that she has it in her power to cost them the election in November."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "This isn't an election anymore. This is a secret bet between Bill and Hillary ala Trading Places in which they bet how much bullshit they can make the electorate swallow. [The] Florida 2000 poison -- another bucket. And then the suffrage nonsense -- yet another bucket. And the co-option of the Civil Rights era after weeks of transparent appeals that whites won't vote for the black guy which JUST SO COINCIDENTALLY took form during the Appalachian primaries (which conveniently occurred after North Carolina, the last state with a large black population) -- buckets of bullshit over your head, in your face. And then Zimbabwe remarks, a bucket of bullshit so stupid that her audience probably didn't even understand it (I would kill to see video of the people in the audience during that). It just never stops."

As usual, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with his fellow liberal bloggers: "Just so I understand the Obama blog argument, they say that calling for counting the votes is the most vile, most outrageous, most heinous act in the history of politics. Did I get that right?"

CLINTON II: Vying For The Veep Spot?

Time's Karen Tumulty reports that Bill Clinton wants Hillary to be Obama's running mate:

"What will Clinton's terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill 'is pushing real hard for this to happen,' says a friend."

Meanwhile, The Field's Al Giordano reports that Hillary told Obama that she wants to be his running mate and he said "no":

"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said 'no.' Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process."

Pro-Obama bloggers think Giordano's report -- if true -- would explain Clinton's abrupt shift in tone over the past few days:

• Moulitsas: "In matters like these, I won't put much stock on anyone's secret sources -- whether it's Time or the always excellent Al Giordano -- since there's so much bullshit, misinformation, and rumors floating around that it would be impossible for anyone to sift between fact and fiction. There are probably only a handful of people who would know whether this is true, and they're not publicly dishing. But as a theory, Clinton's over-th