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 May 27, 2008 01:00 PM