May 29, 2008

5/29: The Rightroots Flex Their Muscles

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

DEM FIELD: The Clintonites Are Going Down Fighting

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: She Was Against It Before She Was For It

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

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

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

OBAMA: Tired Of Gotcha Politics

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

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

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

Mark Kleiman thinks conservatives won the news cycle:

"Yesterday we learned:

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

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

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

OBAMA II: Pants On Fire

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

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

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

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

OBAMA III: Iraq Trippin'

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

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

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

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

OBAMA IV: The Webb Paradox

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

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

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

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

MCCAIN: He's Being Advised By Who?

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

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

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

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

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

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

LEST WE FORGET: Rachael, Michelle, and Whoopi

Radar's Sarah Horne:

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

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

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

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 29, 2008 12:39 PM