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 May 28, 2008 12:54 PM