May 16, 2008

5/16: Foreign Policy In Focus

The Dem primary may still be going on, but it sure feels like the general election has begun. Liberal bloggers are hammering President George W. Bush for his speech to Israel's parliament, in which he accused Barack Obama of favoring "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way that some Western politicians wanted to appease Adolf Hitler. Liberal bloggers are also criticizing John McCain for agreeing with Bush's remarks, and they're delighted that prominent Dems (including Hillary Clinton) are defending the party's presumptive nominee. Conservative bloggers, of course, are arguing that Bush's criticisms were accurate and that Obama's foreign policy views are "foolish".

Liberal bloggers aren't just defending Obama, however; they're also launching their own attacks on McCain. The netroots are slamming McCain for predicting (among other things) that American combat involvement in Iraq will be over by the end of his first term, which they consider an "unadulterated fantasy". They're also accusing McCain of changing his position on meeting with Hamas. Foreign policy, it seems, has returned to the forefront of this year's presidential campaign. But will it remain there? And if so, which candidate will benefit?

DEM FIELD: Obama Veepstakes

Open Left's Paul Rosenberg thinks Obama should choose John Edwards as his running mate: "By choosing Edwards as his running mate -- and thus balancing his ticket with someone who can appeal to the core white working-class demographic that has been Clinton's base of support -- Obama can in fact reinforce what he is all about. [...] Edwards [could] be both a 'balancing' and a 'reinforcing' candidate, and the end result would be a much more robust model of just what it is that Obama stands for -- which is why it would be such a potent, powerful move on Obama's part."

Pro-Clinton bloggers think Obama should choose Clinton, not Edwards:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Setting aside the rather, to put it mildly, rosy expectations regarding Edwards' appeal, isn't there something missing from Paul [Rosenberg]'s discussion? Yep, that's right -- Hillary Clinton and her supporters. [...] Hillary Clinton is viewed as having NO appeal with voters. It is rather funny when you compare it to the high regard that Paul has for Edwards' supposed appeal to voters. The more I read from Obama bloggers and the Creative Class, the more I become convinced that driving the Clinton wing of the Dem Party out is one of their primary goals. I hold to my view that the Obama Wing of the Democratic Party needs to decide what is more important to them, winning in November, or destroying the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. I doubt they can do both."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Today on Hardball, there was more fawning over how great John Edwards and Barack Obama looked on the stage together yesterday, the point, of course, being that they're a ticket made in heaven. I have to agree they did look great but so did John Kerry and John Edwards four years ago and we all know how well that worked out. The truth is, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton looked perfect together too once upon a time, but the quintessential Dream Ticket image of them standing on the stage together after the Los Angeles debate has been overshadowed by the tension of the race between them that's ensued since then, not to mention the most recent debate, which was anything but a showcase of unity. [...] My real point here is that in fact, as great a guy and a candidate John Edwards is and was, he has in no way demonstrated that he would somehow be the key to the white working class vote. [...] In fact, Hillary Clinton didn't exactly blow Obama away on this measure either that early in the game but as we've seen in the most recent contests, the game has changed."
• Taylor Marsh: "What would an Edwards vice presidency say to all of Hillary's millions and millions of women? I won't print the answer on this blog, but it begins with 'f' and ends with you. Oh, and for the record, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius nor Janet Napolitano will do. Ask a Clinton supporter ready to cast a protest vote for McCain. She'll tell you. [...] Clinton supporters who are threatening a protest vote for John McCain are large in number, many of whom are regulars on this blog and in the comment section, with hundreds of emails from lurkers to me every day saying they will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee. The disrespect for Hillary Clinton has been too wide and too deep in the Democratic Party, and they're not going to support it anymore. [...] Memo to the Democratic leadership elite: Consider yourselves on notice. Hell hath no fury. Believe it."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, an Obama supporter, mocks Clinton supporters who argue that Obama must pick Clinton as his running mate: "Hillary Clinton for VP. She's earned it! Sure, she brings nothing to the ticket geographically, and offers nothing demographically that can't be offered by anyone else, but it's her or nothing! If you do the math, adding them up together makes them an invincible 'dream team', even though we believe Obama is sexist and hasn't crossed the 'commander in chief threshold'. The superdelegates better force this on Obama! If she doesn't get the vice-presidential nomination, we walk!"

OBAMA: Bushwhacked

Liberal bloggers are slamming Bush for accusing Obama of wanting "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way that some Western politicians wanted to appease Hitler. Bloggers are particularly furious that Bush made these statements while speaking to Israel's parliament:

"'Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,' Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

'We have heard this foolish delusion before,' Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. 'As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'"

• The Huffington Post: "President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically today during his trip to Israel. After likening Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Osama bin Laden, Bush compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "The president attacked Sen. Obama as a terrorist coddler on the order of the late 30s Nazi-appeasers in a speech before the Israeli Knesset. As the president who's probably done more to damage this country than any in 150 years, I can't say I'm exactly surprised that he'd do this. But it really was disgusting, even for him."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Wow. Losing a congressional race in Mississippi and being the most hated president in American history makes a guy say crazy things. Not to mention, John McCain must be in real trouble if Bush had to stoop this low to help him. This is so inappropriate in so many ways. [...] I'm hoping the [Anti-Defamation League], which always weighs in when Democrats say such things, will be blasting our president for invoking Hitler in our presidential race. Not to mention, doing it in Israel? How tacky can you get."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "If you're a conservative and your ideas make no sense, then your opponents must be Neville Chamberlain. [...] To hawks, it's always 1939, every foreigner we don't like is a new Hitler, and preventive war is always the only solution. Bush and McCain truly are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged [Dwight] Eisenhower to go for 'rollback' and who insisted that Ronald Reagan betrayed the true path when he sat down with [Mikhail] Gorbachev for arms control talks."
• Firedoglake's emptywheel notes that Bush's grandfother, ex-CT Sen. Prescott Bush, had financial ties to Hitler supporters: "Boy, George Bush must not have liked his Granddaddy Prescott very much. [...] Or maybe it's just negotiating with Nazis that's the problem -- making tons of dough by serving as their banker? The Bush family doesn't appear to have any problem with that. [...] If we had a press corps with any historical memory, I guess, such a statement might get Bush in trouble (not to mention make it difficult for his hosts who invited a lame duck grandson of a banker to the Nazis to speak to the Knesset). But instead they're likely to focus on the false claim that Obama wants to appease Hamas."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DemFromCT thinks Bush's attack helps Obama: "Bush just did his Great Uniter bit to help unite everyone in the Democratic party behind Obama."

OBAMA II: Is Hillary Back On The Team?

Clinton chastised Bush for his remarks:

"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we've come to expect from President Bush."

Daily Kos' Scout Finch was pleased by Clinton's response: "Isn't that nice? Democrats attacking Republicans instead of each other? Is that the light at the end of the tunnel? Let's hope that Senator Clinton will continue to coalesce around Senator Obama and exit the race in a graceful fashion. It's time to heal our primary wounds and get busy attacking the entire Republican machine that has taken this country so far off track. If her comments today were any indication, she's ready to do just that...and not a moment too soon."

Several Clinton supporters and pro-Clinton bloggers also defended Obama:

• Clinton adviser Paul Begala criticized Bush in a Huffington Post diary: "George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself, our Nation, and the high office he holds. In a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, Mr. Bush forfeited the last scraps of his moral authority, dishonoring himself by using one of the world's most important pulpits to launch a false and vicious political attack against Barack Obama. [...] It is especially appalling to supporters of Israel that Mr. Bush would stand on a hilltop in Jerusalem to invoke the Holocaust in order to make a cheap and deeply dishonest political point. [...] As an American I am ashamed that such a man represents me. I say this as someone who has not supported Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries; someone who has reservations about Sen. Obama's plan to engage Iran in talks without any preconditions. But there comes a time when intra-party rivalries must yield, and all of us must stand together against the degradation of the Office of the Presidency."
• Big Tent Democrat: "There is a famous truism that politics ends at the waters' edge. George W. Bush trampled that much trumpeted principle to engage in a vile McCarthyistic attack on Barack Obama before the Israeli Knesset. Not only is George W. Bush the worst President in history, he is the most tasteless and disgusting. What a shameful episode for our Nation that this travesty of a President was elected to the highest office in our land. He will always remain a stain in our history."

OBAMA III: Bush Was Right!

Conservative bloggers are defending Bush's remarks and criticizing Obama (as well as Dems more generally):

• The Weekly Standard's William Kristol: "Barack Obama is upset at this statement by President Bush. Why? What does he disagree with? Shouldn't he just have seconded the president's admonition against falling for such a foolish delusion? Or does he know that his promise to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad puts him in the camp of the foolish delusionists?"
• Townhall's Michael Medved: "Hasn't Barack Obama specifically suggested face-to-face negotiations with iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? And isn't Ahmadine-wack job a 'terrorist and radical?' If Iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism (and it proudly is) doesn't that make the president a terrorist? And even if you resist the idea of classifying the President of Iran as a 'terrorist,' surely he counts as a radical, doesn't he? In what sense, then is, [Bush's statement] a 'false attack'?
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Bush]'s relatively banal statement -- banal because it has been repeated in some form or another by Western leaders ever since it became indubitably clear that Neville Chamberlain did not quite have things right at Munich -- has caused people to lose their ever-loving minds. [...] I'm gobsmacked at the idea that an issue should have even been made of this speech. The only thing this furious nonsense has done is to make clear to the McCain people that Team Obama can be easily rattled and made to -- dare I write it? -- lose its bearings."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "If you're upset that America's president opposes negotiating with terrorists and radicals, looks like you've found your party. Vote Democrat -- they apparently agree with you. That's the difference in a nutshell: Democrats are willing to talk to the terrorists; Republicans want to defeat them."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama's reference to former presidents by way of defending his plan to negotate with Iran is unpersuasive. Past presidents negotiated with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, but this is not the same thing as negotiating with a state like Iran that sponsors terrorism against both Israel and the U.S. Neither [John F.] Kennedy nor [Richard] Nixon did any such thing. It's true that President Reagan made overtures to Iran (arms for hostages and all that), but for this he was widely and properly condemned. It was perhaps Reagan's worst moment. It's also unprecedented, I believe, for a president to negotiate with an enemy state without pre-conditions, as Obama has promised to do, in order to persuade the world, as Obama puts it, that we aren't 'arrogant.' Even Hillary Clinton draws the line here. Obama's claim that his diplomacy with terrorist-sponsoring states will be 'tough' rings hollow when a purpose of the negotiations is to persuade the world that we've changed and now are suitably humble."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Look, it is absolutely clear that President Bush never mentioned Obama's name. The fact that Obama and his 'Praise be to Obama' chorus ([Sen. Joe] Biden, [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, etc.) reacted so strongly shows that they KNOW that the description of 'appeaser' applies to him anyway, and that he is quite vulnerable on this count. Without their heated response, the general public would not have directly associated Obama with Bush's remarks -- but now most voters paying attention will have an indelible impression in their minds that Obama = Appeaser. As well they should. Obama's calls for direct talks with Ahmadinejad are spectacularly irresponsible."

MCCAIN: McCain And Bush, Birds Of A Feather

Liberal bloggers are also slamming McCain for agreeing with Bush's remarks on appeasement:

"Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush's veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to 'terrorists and radicals' was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis. [...]

Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser -- the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran -- Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, 'I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'"

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's only May, McCain is slipping further and further into the gutter. It's nothing short of disgraceful. It's hard to overstate how pathetic Bush's and McCain's conduct is on this. It's treacherous political slander at its most obvious. If, eight years ago, Bill Clinton traveled to foreign soil to take cheap and ridiculous shots at the Republican nominee during the presidential campaign, the right would be apoplectic. If Al Gore had quickly endorsed Clinton's attacks, we would never hear the end of it. And yet, that's exactly the dynamic we see playing out this morning."

Several bloggers are criticizing McCain's opposition to meeting with unfriendly foreign heads of state:

• Yglesias: "Not only did George W. Bush decide to take the basically unprecedented step of lashing out at his domestic political opponents in a speech to a foreign parliament, but John McCain chimed in to say he agrees with Bush. He busted out the frequently heard idea that 'serious negotiations' that are 'done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do' is a step that 'enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists' and sundry other evils. This is such a common talking point on the right that you'd think that somewhere out there you could find some kind of causal explanation of how this works. Obama takes office. The Iranians, having heard his campaign rhetoric, send a message through the Swiss or something about the possibility of arranging a summit. Our guys talk to their guys, the meeting happens, and this gives [Mohammad] Khatami enhanced prestige in the eyes of whom? And what does this enhanced prestige allow him to do? What, in other words, are we afraid of?"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I'd go even a step further and ask why John McCain is afraid to speak with Iran. What is it about Iran that scares McCain so much? Or is it that McCain believes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei are so crafty that they would trick an American President into inadvertently ceding the state of Maine or American Samoa to Iran? Or alternatively, is it that McCain simply does not know how to act in a manner different from his true political role model, George W. Bush? America shows its strength by being part of the world, not receding from it. If there is any lesson to learn from the period between the two world wars it is exactly that -- it is entirely counterproductive for America to turn inward and be afraid to engage with the world in a meaningful way. But when America is willing to speak with unfriendly nations from a position of strength -- whether President Kennedy speaking with Premier [Nikita] Kruschev, President Nixon speaking with Chairman Mao [Zedong] or President Reagan speaking with Premier Gorbachev, to take three examples -- both America and the world more broadly can reap serious benefits."
• Marshall: "Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain must be terribly illiterate of our history or extremely cowardly to compare the current president of Iran (who helps govern a country with a tanked economy and a third or fourth rate military) to Adolf Hilter who had regrouped and tossed the restraints from what was the greatest military, scientific and economic powerhouse in Europe."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum thinks McCain's remarks were politically stupid: "Democrats are going to do everything they can to promote the 'McBush' meme this year, and diving in feet first to say 'Me too!' when Bush hauls out artillery like this is just going to make their job easier. If McCain wants to sign on with Mr. 28%, who are we to complain?"

MCCAIN II: So Hamas Isn't Always Off-Limits...

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy after it was revealed that McCain had "expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas" during a 2005 interview with ex-State Dept. official James Rubin. Rubin describes the exchange in an op-ed in today's Washington Post (The Huffington Post also has video of the exchange):

"I asked: 'Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?'

McCain answered: 'They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so...but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.'"

• Singer: "On the issue of Hamas, in particular, because this exchange between Rubin and McCain was caught on tape and it isn't ancient history (just three years ago), this line of attack is now off the table for McCain and the hard right. They simply have no credibility on the issue. What's more, by harping on Hamas from here on out, those on the right would only serve to remind Americans (a) that McCain will flip-flop his positions for political convenience, and (b) that McCain was recently in favor of reaching out to Hamas. To this end, it's hard for me to think of anything else that could have emerged on this topic that could have been more detrimental to McCain."
• Aravosis: "[This] would make McCain a McHypocrite for blasting Obama for proposing the EXACT same thing McCain proposed only two years ago. But in all fairness to McCain, nearing the age of 72, maybe he simply can't remember his positions anymore."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "A video like this should be pretty damaging to McCain per the Tim Russert rule (there's videotape) -- but can the press actually harm their sainted grill-master by using the truth against him?"
• Drum: "I imagine that McCain will wriggle out of this somehow. Maybe by claiming that 'sooner or later' means, um, later. Or that 'deal with them' doesn't include actually talking to them. Or something. But it sure sounds as if he was in favor of talking to Hamas before he was opposed to it."

As Drum predicted, conservative bloggers are denying that McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with Hamas:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "'Deal with them, one way or another' doesn't mean cutting deals with them; it means acknowledging their presence in the situation. [...] The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "'Deal with' is not the same as 'unconditional' talks at the level of heads of state. The President of Iran says that Israel should be destroyed and their weapons are being used to kill American soldiers. Indeed, yesterday on the blogger call McCain pointed out that [Amb.] Ryan Crocker regularly interacts with Iranians in Baghdad."

MCCAIN III: Hope Is Not A Plan

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain for predicting that "American combat involvement [in Iraq] will be over and most U.S. troops back home" by the end of his first term as President:

• Benen: "McCain has been Mr. Vague Generalities since the outset of his presidential campaign; today he predicted the end of the war in Iraq within the next four year based on nothing but his own wishful thinking; and he nevertheless feels comfortable lecturing us on the need for candidates to lead 'not with vague language but with clarity.' This is terribly foolish, and frankly, kind of embarrassing for a serious presidential candidate. McCain's vision for the future of Iraq seems almost child-like: 'I'm going to keep doing what Bush has done and hope things get better.' That's his policy."
• TAPPED's Jordan Michael Smith: "A cursory reading of [McCain's] speech shows it has absolutely no substance. A single paragraph is devoted to Iraq and it's just a fantasy of what the country will look like in five years. In McCain's world, five years from now most US troops will be home; Iraq will be stable and democratic; civil war will have been been averted; and violence will be down sharply. There is no explanation of how McCain is going to magically transform the country. [...] It's not a speech, it's a wish list, but even Santa would have trouble delivering on it."
• Arianna Huffington: "[McCain's speech is] pure, unadulterated fantasy. The political equivalent of the trippy tour the Beatles gave us in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds -- only instead of rocking horse people eating marshmallow pies, we have 'professional and competent' Iraq Security Forces and an Iraqi government 'capable of imposing its authority in every province' and 'defending the integrity of its borders.'"
• Yglesias: "I'm really confused as to what's going on in the Iraq section of John McCain's big speech. His rebuttal to the idea that he favors endlessly prolonging a ruinous war is that he hopes things will go much better in the future. [...] No word on whether or not there will be a pony in every garage. I mean, look, presumably when Bush first invaded Iraq he was hoping it would turn out well. When he warned in 2004 that violence would get worse if we left, he was hoping things would get better in 2005. But instead things got worse. Then when he warned in 2005 that if we left there would be civil war, he was presumably hoping that staying would avoid civil war. But it didn't."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Today John McCain gave his own little 'I Have A Dream' speech, predicting that a McCain presidency would mean most of the troops would be home from Iraq by January, 2013. What's this? A terrorist-appeasing timetable from the man who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Not at all, says McCain: 'It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I'm not putting a date on it. It could be next month, it could be next year, it could be three years from now.' Sound familiar? Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq on Febuary 2, 2003: 'It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.'"

Conservative blogger Peter Wehner also thought McCain's speech was unrealistic: "For all I know, the conceit of the speech might work. The approach is certainly intriguing, and even original. And it'll probably get attention, which may be among its chief selling point. But my initial reaction is it doesn't work, at least for me -- perhaps because the speech seemed to cut against one of McCain's more impressive qualities, which is that he is a grounded, clear-eyed, realistic man, not given to wishful thinking."

Meanwhile, Drum accuses McCain of flip-flopping on the issue of troop withdrawal: "Back at the end of January, John McCain's coup de grâce against Mitt Romney was a completely bogus charge that Romney wanted to 'wave a white flag' in Iraq. 'My friends, I was there,' McCain said. 'He said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal.' This was an early indication that McCain was pretty much willing to say and do anything to win the nomination. But that was then and this is now: polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor a withdrawal from Iraq and McCain wants to win the presidency. Result: in a speech today in Ohio outlining his vision for what he wants the world to look like at the end of his first term, McCain says he'll bring the troops home. [...] His intent is obvious: he wants to let the voting public know that he really, really wants to get out of Iraq soon, just like Barack Obama. It's looking more and more as if everyone's going to be campaigning against the war this year. Welcome aboard, Senator."

MCCAIN IV: Reaching Out To Bloggers Of All Stripes

McCain held another conference call with conservative bloggers yesterday, although this time, the campaign invited several non-conservative bloggers to participate.

TPM's Greg Sargent, a liberal blogger who participated in the conference call, reports that McCain "launched what may be his most direct attack yet on Barack Obama's national security credentials": "In a reference to Obama's declared willingness to meet with the leader of Iran, McCain said: 'I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.' That seems like an unequivocal declaration that Obama is incapable of protecting this country. In the past, McCain has raised doubts about Obama's national security cred, but to our knowledge has never taken the step of declaring outright that he's unfit to defend the country."

Conservative bloggers were impressed with McCain's responses to their questions:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I gotta tell you: McCain sounded good in this teleconference. He trafficked in ideas, he had an appealing vision for the future, and he drew pointed comparisons between what he wanted to do and what Obama wants to do at every opportunity. For all of his flaws, McCain comes across as a tough, experienced leader -- and an unaccomplished empty suit like Barack Obama is really going to come across like a lightweight compared to McCain once people start getting down to brass tacks and making the decision between the two of them."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "John McCain seemed feisty today, even in the face of some somewhat skeptical questions from bloggers."

Michelle Malkin is angry that the McCain camp invited liberal bloggers to participate in the conference call while neglecting to invite her: "The McCain campaign holds weekly blogger conference calls with its candidate. There are many questions I know you'd like asked, but I've never been able to ask them because I haven't been one of the privileged few conservative bloggers allowed into the McCain sanctum to ask those questions for you. Yesterday, I learned that several far left-wing blogs were invited to participate in The Maverick's blogger conference call session. [...] If he's willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country 'safe, prosperous, and proud?' [...] This is indeed an instructive example of how a McCain White House would run: He'll talk to the far left. He'll talk to 'acceptable' conservatives. But the grass-roots Right? Immigration enforcement proponents? You'll be as out of luck as you would be with Barack Obama in office."

Townhall's Amanda Carpenter disagrees with Malkin: "I'm glad [McCain]'s openly fielding hard-hitting questions from the left and the right and I suspect the outrage from the right is because some are just upset they won't get their 'special time' with McCain all to themselves now. Now, when will Obama be hosting his own calls and how soon can I expect my invitation?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama's Silicon Valley Money Machine

The Atlantic's Joshua Green:

"The Internet was still in its infancy when Bill Clinton last ran for president, in 1996, and most of the immense fortunes had not yet come into being; the emerging tech class had not yet taken shape. So, unlike the magnates in California real estate (Walter Shorenstein), apparel (Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell), and entertainment (name your Hollywood celeb), who all had long-established loyalty to the Clintons, the tech community was up for grabs in 2007. In a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn't possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race. Some of her staff tried to arrange 'prospect meetings' in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. 'There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people,' a Clinton consultant told me last year. As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama."

LEST WE FORGET: Bob Gates Speaks His Mind, Loves The Terrorists

Wonkette's Jim Newell:

"What the hell's wrong with Bob Gates, the Defense Secretary no one ever talks about? Recently he's been running his yap with all sorts of liberal Democrat treasonspeak -- just like Barack Obama, a known member of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Weather Underground. Apparently [Gates] *doesn't* want to bomb Iran or Syria, or even France! Not only that, he says it's counterproductive to even consider bombing these countries that need to be bombed.

First, at the Academy of American Diplomacy yesterday, Bobert said that we have missed opportunities to negotiate with Iran. Actual talky-talk! Then he said we need 'leverage' with Iran, rather than just demanding they do shit. Jesus, why don't you just put on yr freaking Turban o'Terror, Bob Gates-Qaeda? [...] Oh but that is nothing compared to what he told the good Americans at the Heritage Foundation a couple of days ago. Guy said that wanting to start new wars is a 'disease.' Well if 'bombing Iran' is what you consider AIDS, Mr. 'Gates,' then consider us HIV-positive! [...]

Would you like a Muslim Latte with your Arugula Salad, Mr. 'I'm Gay And Talk To People'? Perhaps an Ahmadinejad Biscuit, covered in Al-Zawahiri Gravy? A Farrakhan Pot Roast with Obama Carrots?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 16, 2008 12:48 PM