May 22, 2008

5/22: Burning Bridges

Liberal bloggers are furious that Hillary Clinton followed Barack Obama to FL yesterday in order to aggressively push for the seating of FL's and MI's delegates. They're accusing Clinton of shameless opportunism, noting that her campaign initially supported the DNC's decision to punish FL and MI for moving their primaries forward. What really liberal bothers bloggers about Clinton's tactics, however, is that they believe she's deliberately undermining the legitimacy of the likely Dem nominee and making it less likely that her supporters will back Obama in the fall. Bloggers are also disgusted by Clinton's provocative rhetoric (she compared her quest to seat FL's and MI's delegates to the civil rights movement and invoked FL's 2000 recount and the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe). Matthew Yglesias decries Clinton's "bizarre and reckless behavior" while Steve Benen writes, "I've never been so disappointed with a politician I've admired and respected." Right now, Clinton's relationship with liberal bloggers is as strained as it's ever been.

CLINTON: Zimbabwe? Seriously?

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing Clinton for following Obama to FL in order to argue that FL's and MI's delegates should be seated. They're also disgusted that Clinton "compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Benen: "I've defended Clinton, more than once, when people said she was putting her own interests above those of the party and the nation. But after seeing her tactics yesterday, I'm done defending Hillary Clinton. I'm 35, and have been following politics for quite a while, and I've never been so disappointed with a politician I've admired and respected. Yesterday's tactics weren't just wrong, they were offensive. For that matter, they seem to be part of a deliberate strategy to tear Democrats apart and ensure a defeat in November. For several weeks, I've appreciated the fact that Clinton considers herself the superior candidate, and has kept her campaign going in the hopes, from her perspective, of saving the party from itself. But after yesterday, it's become impossible for me to consider Clinton's intentions honorable. Her conduct is not that of a leader. [...] Instead of trying to help bring the party together -- Election Day is 24 weeks away -- Clinton went to Florida to argue that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, his nomination will be illegitimate. And if the DNC plays by the rules Clinton used to support, it's guilty of vote-suppression -- comparable to slavery, Jim Crow, and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "So Obama's victory in getting the Democratic nomination is as illegitimate as Bush's stealing of the vote in Florida. She really is hateful. And she really is going to torpedo Obama's campaign. And our leaders won't do a damn thing about it because, you know, it would be mean. I wonder if they'd be so reticent were Joe Biden being this much of an idiot."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Okay, today we found out that counting the fake Florida primary is, according to Hillary Clinton, like Woman's Suffrage, Civil Rights, Florida 2000, [and] Zimbabwe. It's also like the Big Bang, Jesus, and cute kittens."
• BooMan: "[Clinton's] decision to make a huge issue out of Florida and Michigan that is probably the most dangerous aspect of her continuing campaign. When the DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31st, they will face the choice of giving Clinton everything she wants or furnishing the final blow that ratifies Obama's pledged delegate lead. It's clear that she will then rile up her supporters into some kind of Al Gore sense of outrage, and alienate them from our nominee. And, to be clear, Barack Obama is in no way responsible for the fiascoes in Michigan and, especially, Florida. I think this delegitimization of Obama's victory is the act she will be most remembered for. And if Obama does not win the election in November, Clinton will join Ralph Nader in the left-wing Hall of Shame."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "It's worth repeating: [Clinton] supported this 'disenfranchisement.' Here's a New York Times story from last fall, headlined, 'Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States.' [...] She decided to campaign to change the rules only after it became her interest to do so. [...] This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It's obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don't want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton's character. [...] If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying. I think she's so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It's not just that she's convinced herself it's okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What a contemptible wretch Sen. Clinton has turned out to be, and I find it stunning that many Democratic blogs who routinely bitch about the various and numerous violations of rules, law, and international agreements by the Bush administration sit by and swallow this nonsense from the Senator Clinton."
• The Atlantic's Yglesias: "At this point, I've reached the conclusion that further criticism of Hillary Clinton's behavior from people who everyone knows prefer Obama on the merits is useless and perhaps even counterproductive. What's needed is for people who prefer Clinton on the merits to defect now that her campaign has lost and is continuing to engage in bizarre and reckless behavior. But I suppose it is worth noting that comparing her situation to that of the opposition movement in Zimbabwe is a really offensive way of trivializing the work of some very courageous people."

CLINTON II: Insulting People's Intelligence?

Liberal bloggers are also hammering Clinton for repeatedly claiming that she leads Obama in the popular vote (which is true only if one awards Obama zero votes from MI, where his name wasn't on the ballot):

• Moulitsas:

  "One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies. Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote. Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- (1) this is a delegate race, and (2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid) -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing. Clinton is 'leading' the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

  1.) You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
  2.) You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
  3.) You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

  In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates. In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it."



• Scott Lemieux: "Unless you insult people's intelligence by counting North Korea-style one-major-candidate unsanctioned not-even-straw polls and not counting several contests actually sanctioned by the party (under standards [Terry] McAuliffe contemporaneously supported), the person who wins under the meaningless 'most primary votes in history' metric is...Barack Obama. Given that the Clinton campaign seems to think this crap will actually convince people, it's pretty easy why they thought that blowing off a month's worth of primaries and caucuses was an effective strategy."

CLINTON III: Playing A Dangerous Game

Liberal bloggers think Clinton's popular vote claims are dangerous, since they may turn her supporters against Obama:

• Lemieux: "I can understand people thinking this kind of thing is trivial. But I don't think that's right. It should be remembered that Clinton's campaign...is using these ridiculous Calvinball metrics to undermine the legitimacy of the Democratic nominee. If there was any significant chance that she could win, that might be acceptable. If she even had a credible argument that she was ahead in the popular vote -- one anyone would have accepted before the nomination, without knowing who it would benefit -- that would be a different issue. But to send flacks to rile up other Democrats against Obama under these circumstances is a disgrace."
• Atrios: "As Scott says, it isn't trivial and it's destroying the respect I once had for a group of people. It's weird, really, having in some sense started my political life defending the Clintons and now being rather fed up with them. I'm not important, but I'm not alone."
• The Huffington Post's Paul Loeb: "The superdelegates understand the real math, or they ought to. But given the 'bitterness' of so many Clinton supporters toward [the] reality that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear a story that suggests Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Clinton's voters embrace that story that 'a man took it away from a woman,' denied her a victory she rightly deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and the get out the vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail. [...] Every time she claims she has a popular majority, she's shattering whatever ceasefire exists and making it that much more likely that her supporters stay home come November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop, and the media and the superdelegates need to hold her accountable."

CLINTON IV: I'm Tellin' Y'all, It's Sabotage

Several liberal bloggers are upset that Clinton is emphasizing the role that sexism has played in the Dem primary, as they fear that this will also make it harder for Obama to win over her supporters in the fall:

• Aravosis: "In the past week, we've been subjected to what appears to be a coordinated campaign by the Clinton people to convince their own followers, and much of America, that the reason Hillary lost to Obama is because of sexism. Even more, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates are arguing that Hillary didn't lose at all -- she actually won the election and it is precisely America's sexism that is stealing her victory away from her. In a nutshell, math is misogynist. Putting aside for a moment the mutli-layered lie that is any talking point coming from the Clinton campaign (yes, the great white hope is now a champion against bigotry), the more important question isn't whether Hillary faced and faces sexism, but rather, why is Hillary still trying to open more wounds in the party and the electorate?"
• The Huffington Post's Eric Deggans: "This is how the Clintons could pull the Democratic Party down to general election defeat alongside their fading presidential hopes: a pointless fight over gender politics. [...] Now that Clinton's hopes of winning the nomination are more distant than ever, this talk seems less about helping her campaign and more about hardening the attitudes of her supporters against Obama. More than one pundit has said the success of the Democratic nominee will be determined by the way the loser loses. Talk which encourages the loser's supporters to hold a grudge helps no one but the Republicans, who are hoping the record turnout for Democrats is diminished in the general election by ongoing discord over the primary results. Already, Clinton can blame her campaign for tarnishing her family's legacy of connection to America's black voters. Will she also risk taking blame for sinking the general election by losing badly?"

Digby, on the other hand, thinks Clinton is right to discuss the impact of sexism on her campaign: "Unfortunately, at this point I think the media is actually hurting the Obama campaign with their continued sexist coverage. He is trying to reach out to her supporters and the press is making it much harder for him by keeping this hostile, demeaning discussion --- particularly this endless call for her to drop out --- roiling in the ether. The party will work this out, but the media, as usual, is making things worse. [...] This ugly treatment of Clinton has left a bad taste in many people's mouths and at this point, it's probably necessary for her to see it through and leave the race on her own terms. Obama's campaign certainly seems to recognize that this needs to be handled respectfully and sensitively."

OBAMA: Veepstakes

After initially declaring that "it is essential that Obama choose a running mate who opposed the war from the start," Open Left's Chris Bowers changes his mind and tentatively endorses an Obama-Clinton ticket: "Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the most obvious way to combine the Clinton and Obama coalitions to put them both on the ticket? It isn't a perfect method, and it won't work out like the above map, but it is probably the best method available. And really, when one looks over the conservative crop of names that are being floated for VP, like [OH Gov. Ted] Strickland, [VA Sen. Jim] Webb, and [IN Sen. Evan] Bayh, isn't Clinton actually preferable to all of them, too? Not to mention that we are going to have to heal the party, and giving Clinton the VP slot is probably the fastest way to do so. I've been an advocate of a 'reinforcing' VP pick for a while now. I even arrived at [KS Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius by process of elimination, using my basic logic. However, as time goes on, I have to wonder if political concerns, not to mention the general weakness of other available options, actually makes Clinton the best choice for VP. It isn't ideal, but it could be the best of imperfect options."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, a longtime advocate of an Obama-Clinton ticket, applauds Bowers' conversion: "Chris Bowers joins the burgeoning Unity Ticket Movement (by burgeoning I mean me, Chris, Todd Beeton and Ed Kilgore.) [...] Chris might get run out of the Creative Class for this one."

Moulitsas, on the other hand, suggests that Obama pick MO Sen. Claire McCaskill: "The more I think about it, the best presidential picks are 'chemistry' picks, those that put two nominees together who like each other and work well with each other (like Gore or [Dick] Cheney). Veep nominees that attempt to compensate for a weakness only serve to highlight that weakness (like [Joe] Lieberman or [Lloyd] Bentsen). And very few veep nominees can deliver geography (like Bentsen or [John] Edwards). But when the two candidates like each other and work well together in purpose and message, it's pretty powerful. And on that front, while she's not my favorite veep pick (which is still [Bill] Richardson), I think that Sen. Claire McCaskill would qualify brilliantly. She may be perhaps Obama's most loyal and hard-working surrogate, and she'd nicely complement Obama's message of change. And if you see them together, they are a great team. Normally, I'd flat out oppose it, given that she'd cost us a Senate seat. But the Missouri Governor is sworn in before the President of the United States, meaning that if McCaskill was our vice presidential nominee, her replacement would be chosen by Gov. Jay Nixon."

MCCAIN: Veepstakes

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the news that John McCain plans to host three potential running mates -- Mitt Romney, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal, and FL Gov. Charlie Crist -- at his AZ ranch:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks the meeting is savvy p.r. move: "John McCain's 'social' get together with Governors Charlie Crist and Bobby Jindal and former governor Mitt Romney is a very good p.r. move, even if he doesn't end up selecting any of those three as his running mate. It generates buzz, it prompts folks to talk about the relative strengths of each one, and it feeds the media buzz machine. It will break through the Obama-Hillary fight like few other things he's done since clinching the nomination."
• RedState's Erick Erickson hopes McCain doesn't pick Crist: "Bobby Jindal -- I expect he'll say no, but you can ask. Louisiana needs him and he needs more time in office. But good choice. Mitt Romney -- absolutely, but he really doesn't get you as much as a few others could. But he'd be great. Charlie Crist -- are you kidding me? Seriously? Let me be blunt yet again: I will bolt so fast from supporting you if you pick this well tanned squish and all his baggage. Charlie Crist is totally and completely unacceptable. That's not even negotiable. I do not think I could say anything positive at all about the GOP ticket if that guy were on it. Go with Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee, but do not go with Charlie Crist. Senator, your problem is with conservatives, not with squishy moderates."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein isn't fond of any of the three choices: "Clearly, McCain owes a favor to Crist, who no doubt helped put him over the top in the crucial Florida primary, so this very well could be who McCain ends up choosing. The problem is he isn't particularly liked by conservatives. I also think McCain should be able to win the Sunshine State without him on the ticket. Jindal would, without a doubt, add instant conservative appeal to his ticket, as well as youth, and a brilliant mastery of policy. But the problem is that at 36, he's still quite inexperienced, and thus picking him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency will undercut the central argument McCain is making against Obama. [...] The same commentators who spent all of last year trying, without success, to convince the grassroots that Romney was the candidate for conservatives, are now arguing that McCain can instantly win over conservatives by picking Romney. That is ludicrous. If Romney had truly closed the deal with conservatives, he would have captured the nomination. [...] Also, good luck running a 'Straight Talk' campaign with Romney on the ticket. On top of the fact that he wouldn't win over conservatives, Romney would be an absolute albatross on nationally, because in the process of twisting himself in a pretzel on issue after issue in the primaries, the general public came to see him as a phony."

Meanwhile, NRO's John O'Sullivan thinks McCain should pick Romney: "[McCain] needs a Mitt Romney to testify that the GOP will know exactly how to handle the economic squalls that are assuredly coming our way. Romney is an executive from central casting. He is also distinctly young whereas McCain is, well, getting on. [...McCain] needs to persuade the American voter that someone will be there to catch him if he falls. Finally, Romney established himself in the primaries as the main conservative champion or at least as the last conservative standing. His selection would reassure the conservatives who are the main victims of 'Maverick John's' media-pleasing policies over the years."

MCCAIN II: Comment Trolls Wanted!

Both liberal and conservative bloggers are mocking McCain's new blog outreach program:

"Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.

Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you've commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center."

First, liberal bloggers:

• The Huffington Post's Will Thomas: "That's right; the McCain camp wants to recruit online supporters and activists to serve as comment trolls. [...] Now, don't worry if you've never heard of a blog, or never written a comment, or heck, even used a computer. Because not only does the campaign tell you on which blogs to comment -- Redstate for right-wingers, Daily Kos for progressives (sorry HuffPo fans, we didn't make the list) -- it will even tell you what to say! Just click on the Blog Interaction page for 'Today's Talking Points.'"
• Moulitsas: "The McCain camp knows its supporters are blithering idiots who can't think for themselves, so they are helpfully offering daily talking points."

Next, conservative bloggers:

• Michelle Malkin: "In the spirit of transparency, if any of you leave pro-McCain comments in order to earn those 'points,' I request that you disclose that information when you post here. In the spirit of open dialogue and outreach, I encourage the rest of you all to reciprocate and leave your thoughts about McCain -- say, his decision to retain Juan Hernandez, speak at the the La Raza/The Race conference, embrace anti-assimilationist campaign finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio, and perpetuate global warming hysteria, for starters -- on the McCain campaign blog. The McCain blog is here. Sorry, I don't have any 'points' to give you. Standing on principle in defense of security, sovereignty, and sound science is its own reward!"
• Erickson: "WTH? Earning Points? [...] Feel free to say nice things about John McCain, but if you are doing it to accumulate points of some kind, I'd appreciate it if you disclose that fact. Do you really need points to say something nice?"

Unlike his fellow conservative bloggers, Townhall's Matt Lewis actually likes McCain's idea: "This is actually something I've long thought smart campaigns should consider. After all, comments can sometimes influence the bloggers -- or even change narratives, themselves. So it stands to reason a campaign would seek to influence the debate not only on the blogs, but in the comments, as well. [...] Political campaigns have always 'encouraged' supporters to do things like call-in to talk radio shows, etc. These efforts are usually conducted in a clandestine manner, of course -- while this is a very overt effort by the McCain campaign. In this regard, we should probably applaud the campaign for transparency."

MCCAIN III: Israel Ignores The Lessons Of Munich

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain for criticizing Obama's willingness to meet with hostile foreign leaders after Israel and Syria announced that they have launched "serious and continuous" indirect peace talks:

• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Israel Ignores the Lessons of Munich. It seems Israel is appeasing Syria. I hope someone asks McCain about this wild and irresponsibly reckless behavior."
• Aravosis: "Israel is holding talks with Syria. Are they Hitler appeasers too? Time for the media to ask John McCain and George Bush whether they reject and denounce Israel."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Even if Syria and Israel manage to reach agreement, Syria almost certainly needs direct assurances from the United States too before it would enter into any kind of comprehensive deal -- something which would, among other things, have the salutary effect of cutting off Iran from an ally and increasing Hamas's isolation. President Obama has made it clear that he'd be willing to be a part of that. President McCain, not so much. That's your foreign policy choice this November in a nutshell."
• TAPPED's Jordan Michael Smith: "If Israel is okay talking with countries that support terrorism against Israel, why isn't America okay talking with countries that support terrorism against Israel?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are convinced that Obama is winning this debate with McCain:

• Moulitsas: "How delicious is it to see Obama upending the Beltway's foreign policy and media establishments by running on a platform of tough diplomacy, rather than a 'my dick is bigger than yours'?"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "To his credit, Obama is defying the conventional wisdom that Democrats are safer talking about the economy and not challenging Republicans on national security. That conventional wisdom has always been nonsense and never more so than now: 80 percent of Americans believe we're on the wrong track, and most know they were deceived about the Iraq threat and ill-served by a belligerent Administration too quick to demonize and too unwilling to talk. [...] Bush and McCain have already been undercut by those in their own party, including Chuck Hagel, Secretary [Robert] Gates and former Secretary of State James Baker. And McCain has left himself vulnerable by seeming to argue against diplomacy when Americans are sick of war."

MCCAIN IV: Another Gem From Hagee

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that controversial pastor (and McCain endorser) John Hagee claimed in a late '90s sermon that Hitler was fulfilling God's will. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports:

"John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a 'hunter,' sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.

Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: '"And they the hunters should hunt them," that will be the Jews. "From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks." If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that.'"

• Benen: "This is the guy whose support McCain worked for a year to earn. It's also the guy McCain refuses to repudiate, and to this day, whose endorsement he's 'proud' and 'glad' to have. [...] I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama sought out a pastor, accepted his endorsement, campaigned alongside him, defended him from criticism, and then we learned that this same pastor thought Hitler was fulfilling God's will. I have a hunch reporters might ask Obama if he'd be willing to repudiate such a person."
• Drum: "According to pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain says he's glad to have, the Holocaust was God's way of punishing European Jews for not emigrating to Israel quickly enough and Hitler was His divine instrument for getting this done. Charming. [...] Of course, this whole thing is just garden variety white crazy, and the audio clip is more than five seconds long, which means that neither Sean Hannity nor CNN will play it on a 24/7 loop. I guess that leaves it up to the mighty blogosphere to draw attention to it."
• Oliver Willis: "But John Hagee isn't a scaaaarrrrrry black guy and the media loves McCain, so it doesn't count."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Problem with Boca

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg reacts to Jodi Kantor's New York Times article, "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama":

"Jodi Kantor's alternately amusing and disturbing visit to Boca Raton and environs, in which she found many elderly Jews willing to say ill-informed things about Barack Obama, is a reminder that the rupture in black-Jewish relations is still very real (and that Crown Heights story didn't help, either). I would have been happier had some of these alte kockers expressed some substantive criticism of Obama. But it's important to remember that, despite all of these problems of perception, and of actual racism, Jews are still far more likely than other whites to vote for a black candidate for President. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama ends up with 70 or 75 percent of the Jewish vote. The Appalachian Jewish vote might be problematic -- those Kentucky Jews are hardheaded, all five of them -- but overall, I imagine that, at the very least, he'll do better than [Jimmy] Carter did in 1980."

LEST WE FORGET: Nike Signs Big Brown To $90 Million Horseshoe Contract

From The Onion:

"PORTLAND, OR -- In a move that added the world's pre-eminent equine athlete to its stable of endorsers Tuesday, Nike signed Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown to a seven-year, $80 million endorsement contract that included a $10 million signing bonus as well as the creation of a signature horseshoe, the Air Brown. [...]

'Big B doesn't complain when he gets the far outside starting gate position,' [Nike president Mike] Parker added. 'He just gallops. And he gives hope to everyone out there that if they train hard, push themselves, and keep their snout clean, they can accomplish anything.'

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 22, 2008 12:46 PM