June 30, 2008

6/30: Wesley Snipes

During a 6/29 appearance on "Face The Nation," Gen. Wesley Clark stirred up controversy when he seemed to downplay John McCain's Vietnam service as a qualification for the presidency.

Clark: "I certainly honor [McCain's] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces.... He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. ... But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. ... I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

Conservative bloggers were outraged over Clark's comments:

• Right Wing News's McQ: "Of all the 'ex-generals' floating around out there, perhaps the most odious is Wesley Clark. Today he decided it was his place to demean John McCain's military service. ... Clark's attempt at denigrating and minimizing McCain's service aside, McCain's service is a qualification among many. Say what you will about McCain otherwise, but his service to the country was exemplary."
• Michelle Malkin: "If Gen. Wesley Clark had vice presidential aspirations, they went out the window yesterday when he opened his mouth and removed any lingering doubt about his idiocy."
• Red State's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "One searches the news report in vain for any claims that Senator [Hillary] Clinton -- who Clark initially supported -- had executive experience, commanded 'a wartime squadron' or was responsible for ordering 'the bombs to fall.' One searches in vain as well for similar observations concerning Senator [Barack] Obama. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder why Wesley Clark would make the arguments he makes about Senator McCain, given that they apply with a hundred times more force -- at least! -- to Senator Obama."
• Wake Up America's Susan Duclos: "This is one discussion Barack Obama truly does not want to have but since his surrogate has opened the door, he doesn't have much of a choice now."
• Right Wing News's William Teach: "So, Clark goes out there as an Obama surrogate and attacks McCain and his military service. But, hey, the Obama campaign is about hope and change, a new way of doing politics. I'm betting the bus runs Clark over by 4pm Monday."

Other conservative bloggers, while insisting that Clark stepped over the line, conceded that the general made some valid points regarding McCain's military service.

• Sister Toldja: "It's one thing to say that serving in the military in a war alone doesn't necessarily make one qualified to be president, but considering the hell McCain went through for 7 years as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton, attacks of this nature -- insinuating that McCain's getting shot down was the sign of a weak fighter pilot -- are below the belt, especially coming from a fellow military man."
• Outside The Beltway's James Joyner: "On one level, Clark has a point. Commanding a training squadron isn't the same as running a wartime theater. And, as I argued when John Kerry was relying too much on his Vietnam experience, ... being a war hero only goes so far in making a case for a presidential candidate. Nor is Clark 'Swift Boating' McCain; he's not questioning his wartime accomplishments. Still, at the larger level, this strikes me as a poor argument. While 'getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down' might not be sufficient qualification to be president, it's certainly more than Barack Obama ever endured. And, while Obama has experience at the community level that McCain can't match, it's a dangerous game for him to send out surrogates to minimize McCain's service."

While reaction to Clark's comments came mostly from the right side of the blogosphere, a handful of liberal bloggers used his comments to go right for McCain's jugular.

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's not 'nice' to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the 'I was tortured' card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience."
• Brilliant At Breakfast: "But is there a candidate with a bigger sense of entitlement than John McCain? In media circles, the mere mention of McCain must be accompanied by 'war hero.' But is he? Does even five years in a Hanoi prison, succumbing to torture and making a propaganda video for one's enemy captors, however understandable, make you a hero? Or are you just a victim, one deserving of understanding and empathy -- but not the presidency?"

OBAMA: Please Don't Dis' Our Unity!

In an effort to salve the wounds of a contentious primary season (particularly among Clinton's older, white, female supporters), Obama and Clinton held a joint rally in the town of Unity, NH, on 6/27. Two of her most die-hard supporters in the blogosphere had very different reactions.

• Taylor Marsh: "I was struck by Obama's facial expressions and body language while he was watching her speak. It sure looked to me like he was humbled and moved that such an incredible candidate was backing him so completely after a rough, prolonged primary battle and narrow defeat. His admiration and respect for her was obvious in his speech as well. At one point, inspired by an enthusiastic Hillary supporter in the crowd, he went off-script to say simply that 'she rocks'. Indeed she does."
• No Quarter's Rev. Amy: "And now seeing these articles and photographs of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama together, him with his hand on her back, just makes me cringe. Frankly, it makes me almost physically ill. See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like -- Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, 'Oh, he didn't really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn't have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don't be mad at him!'"

MCCAIN II: Story Full Of Hot Gas

During a fundraising tour in southern CA on 6/24, McCain was interviewed by a reporter from the Orange County Register.

Martin Wisckol: "I'd like to ask you a couple questions suggested by voters here. They're not reporter-type questions."

McCain: "Sure. It'd be a pleasure."

Wisckol: "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?"

McCain: "Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively."

Liberal bloggers erupted with indignation (which was additionally fueled by a Newsweek expose last week that uncovered unpaid property taxes on one of the McCain's seven homes):

• DownWithTyranny: "It does matter. It matters to good hard-working people -- the ones, unlike the McCains, who pay their taxes -- who are being ruined financially by the Bush-McCain-GOP-Blue Dog economic policies that are fine for multimillionaires and terrible for everyone else."
• Atrios: "Unlike milk and similar, the price of gas is pretty much a staple of the news these days. Glance at a newspaper or flip on teevee news (local, cable, network, whatever), and you'll get the daily update of the price. This isn't just about a presidential candidate who obviously and understandably doesn't fill up his gas tank very often, it's about a presidential candidate who just isn't paying any attention to what's going on in the world."
• BooMan: "I thought John McCain was pushing a summer gas tax holiday. I guess someone just told him to propose that without informing him that gasoline is edging towards $5 a gallon. Who's the out of touch elitist now, Karl Rove?"

Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen was a bit more forgiving, but critical nonetheless. Benen: "Substantively, a story like this one is fairly low on the priority list. ... In all candor, I'm inclined to cut McCain at least some slack on this one. McCain hasn't been in a position to pump his own gas for a while, by virtue of his candidacy. ... And while he probably should have a general sense of the price of a gallon of gas -- he couldn't say, 'About four bucks"'? -- McCain almost certainly knows that it's gone up quite a bit lately, and consumers/voters aren't happy about it. ... Whether McCain knows the price of a gallon of gas or not is trivia compared to his humiliating incoherence on energy policy. That said, voters seem to care about whether a presidential candidate is out of touch, especially in a political environment in which the word 'elitist' is being thrown around. And on this, McCain might be in trouble."

Some liberal bloggers, convinced of a media bias favoring McCain, predicted that their outrage would not be reflected in the MSM:

• Comments From Left Field's tas: "Just think: if any Democrat said this, the calls that he or she is 'elitist' and 'out of touch' would be screamed 24/7. But when McCain says it? Feh, the dude's a maverick! He could boink Monica Lewinsky on live television and the media would still kiss his feet."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "In the past, this is the sort of thing that has helped to put away candidates -- we all remember the silly assertion that George [H.W.] Bush was surprised by a grocery scanner or [Rudy] Giuliani didn't know the cost of a loaf of bread. While false, the story did help the Clinton team portray Bush as out of touch and unaware of what people were going through economically. The real question is whether or not the media will dump their mancrush to savage McMavericky straight talk over his lack of awareness the way they would if this were, well, anyone else. I doubt it, in fact, I bet they defend him."

Ironically, McCain's "GasGate" should probably be included among those "false" stories mentioned by Cole; any fair reading of the Register interview clearly shows that McCain was not responding to the current price of gasoline, but rather the price of gasoline at the time he last filled up his own tank. (That false impression is a prime example of how stories are often distorted in the echo chamber of the blogosphere.)

Patterico appeared to be the first blogger to point out the inaccuracy: "But McCain isn't saying he doesn't know the price of gas. He is saying that he doesn't remember the last time he pumped his own gas, and how much it cost then. ... At best, the story is that McCain doesn't remember the last time he pumped his own gas. Even that is a non-story, since nobody pumps their own gas while on the campaign trail. Someone ask Obama when he last pumped his own gas."

While many bloggers corrected their posts, several stood by their charges of cultural cluelessness:

• Cole: "Patterico unearths a piece from June 18th in which McCain clearly knew gas was over four dollars a gallon. So why didn't he just say this in the OC Register interview?"
• Joyner: "It stands to reason, then, that McCain knew the price at the time of the interview. It would seem, then, that he's guilty merely of giving an irritated and dismissive answer to what he perceived as a 'gotcha' question rather than being out of touch."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Update: I misread the quote. ... He was being asked how much it used to cost. So his answer isn't so dumb -- just the prickly attitude to the populist question."
• Matthew Yglesias: "John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. John McCain doesn't know when he last pumped gas or what it cost. John McCain owns seven homes and forgot to pay taxes on one of them for the past four years. But at least he's not an elitist like Barack Obama. He earned his money the old-fashioned way -- marrying an heiress."

Obama II: Get Off My Backlash!

While liberal bloggers continue to fulminate over Obama's recent shift to the political center, an air of resignation seems to have set in.

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA 'compromise.' Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn't be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC. ... The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, ... but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage."
• HuffPo's Jason Rosenbaum: "For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, [opposing Obama] is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he's screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don't think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to 'hold Obama accountable' for this action? Well, no, frankly."

The bloggers at First Read ruminated on the political risk to Obama: "Going back to the RNC labeling Obama a 'typical politician,' it's worth remembering that Clinton tried this, too. The problem with trying to use this line with Obama is that the historical nature of his candidacy makes it harder for the voter to think the word 'typical' when they see him. ... That said, Obama continues to fuel this line of attack by making conventional decisions like ducking the town hall idea, flipping on campaign finance, trying to straddle the fence on guns, etc. And unlike McCain, Obama doesn't have years of good will with his brand; he only really has about 18 months. McCain has made a lot of subtle shifts away from his so-called maverick independent streak. But because his brand was cemented over years, he's been given more of a benefit of the doubt with the public. Obama's brand reservoir isn't as deep, and he should be much more sensitive to this collecting narrative that he isn't what he claims."

The Stump's Noam Scheiber doesn't perceive any risk at all: "There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing this morning about whether the sum total of Obama's recent pronouncements and maneuvering ... is turning him into a typical Washington pol and undercutting his appeal. [But] I don't think there's a real political risk for Obama here. ... Obama has such a strong tail-wind behind him that he'll win if 'typical pol' is the worst thing you can call him. ... The only way he loses, I think, is if voters get the impression he's somehow un-American, un-patriotic, out of the political mainstream, or unable to keep them safe. To the extent that it draws attention from these insinuations, the 'typical pol' charge may even help him somewhat. Thanks to his race, his eloquence, and his relative youth, Obama's just never going to come across as completely typical. In some sense the bigger risk is not being typical enough."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cyber-Cheating?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Is there any similarity between 'having an actual affair' and having sex with a prostitute while you're married? I think most people would answer yes. Then consider: Is there any similarity between having sex with a prostitute while you're married and paying to watch a prostitute perform sexual acts for your voyeuristic gratification? Again, I think a lot of people would say yes: There's a distinction, obviously, but I don't think all that many spouses would be inclined to forgive their husbands (or wives) if they explained that they only liked to watch the prostitute they'd hired. And hard-core porn, in turn, is nothing more than an indirect way of paying someone to fulfill the same sort of voyeuristic fantasies: It's prostitution in all but name, filtered through middlemen, magazine editors, and high-speed internet connections. Is it as grave a betrayal as cheating on your spouse with a co-worker? Not at all. But is it on a moral continuum with adultery? I don't think it's insane to say yes."

LEST WE FORGET: Raining On Their Love Parade

The Plank's Michelle Cottle: "Not to rain on anyone's grand reconciliation, but someone in the Obama camp should have seen to it that today's public love-in got stuck with a better label than Unity Day. Ick. So cheesy. Makes the party sound like a bunch of hand-holdling, kumbaya-singing peaceniks -- hardly the image the Dems need to be fostering. Next thing you know both camps will wind up out into the woods on one of those ghastly trust-building retreats where everyone swings from trees and falls backward into each other's arms. I personally would have preferred something more along the lines of Reluctantly-joining-forces-to-kick-the-GOP's-ass Day, but I realize that truth in advertising has its limitations."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at 01:09 PM

June 27, 2008

6/27: Let Freedom Cling!

In a landmark decision 6/26, SCOTUS (in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller) overturned DC's controversial, long-standing ban on handguns. More significantly, the 5-4 ruling held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected the right of an individual -- not just a militia -- to bear arms.

Barack Obama, in response to the ruling: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, [the court] acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

John McCain: "I applaud this decision.... Unlike Senator Obama, ... I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling ... makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."

OBAMA: Backfire!

As a long-time advocate of gun control, Obama faced immediate criticism from across the political spectrum for his endorsement of the Heller ruling.

NRO's Yuval Levin: "The past two days of Supreme Court decisions have shed a bright light on Obama's rightward pivot for the general election. ... Today, revising a long held position on gun control, he agrees with Justice [Antonin] Scalia's reading of the Second Amendment.... If only the Court could overturn Roe before the election, Obama would become a pro-lifer."

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein thought Obama's stance was "disappointing." Klein: "[The Obama camp] flipped its position on the constitutionality of the DC handgun ban (were they once said Obama believed the ban unconstitutional, now they say he has no position on it). ... He's going to get hit for opportunism, but this is more the campaign being inartful than illiberal."

Beyond the debate over whether Obama's true stance on gun control and his sincerity regarding Heller, bloggers debated what implications the ruling might have in the fall.

Kevin Drum: "So that's that: the one-worlders at the UN can't take away your guns anymore. ... On another note, this is the latest in a whole bunch of high-profile 5-4 Supreme Court rulings this term. I wonder if that means that the composition of the court will be an even bigger campaign issue than it otherwise would be? My guess is yes."

Eugene Volokh: "[The 5-4 split] should be useful to either of the Presidential candidates who wants to make either gun control or gun rights into an election issue -- my guess is that this is more likely to be McCain. Expect McCain ads in states where there are likely many pro-gun swing voters stressing, 'your constitutional right to keep and bear arms hangs by one vote.' Also expect fundraising letters to likely pro-gun contributors stressing this at length."

On the other hand, many bloggers argued that the Heller decision actually defused the powder-keg issue of guns, particularly since the culture wars are widely expected to have a much smaller impact in this election than WH'04.

CQ's Taegan Goddard: "[The ruling] is not exactly a win for Republicans -- even though it went farther than even the Bush administration hoped. By re-affirming that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the court effectively takes the gun issue out of the fall campaign. Republicans will now have a very hard time arguing that if you elect Democrats they will take away your guns."

HuffPo's Sanford Levinson: "[A]s a partisan Democrat, I confess to being relieved that the dissenters did not prevail, for the upholding of the D.C. ordinance would, in effect, have served as a massive in-kind campaign contribution to John McCain."

Chris Cillizza: "[I]t would be a mistake to assign too much political importance to today's decision. Gun rights are, by and large, a niche issue with little ability to move the political meter. In the most recent Post-ABC national poll, just one percent of voters said that guns and/or gun control were the most most important issue in the election."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The problem for McCain here is that rehashing bitter gate is pretty much all he has because he and Senator Obama really aren't all that far apart on this issue. ... By essentially agreeing with McCain, Obama takes gun control off the table as a wedge issue and leaves McCain with very little to point to distinguishing between their positions."

Even if McCain is able to make hay with the Heller decision, Weekly Standard's Richelieu cautions him: "The McCain campaign should be careful how they handle the Court's decision on handguns. While the Second Amendment in general is a winning GOP issue, the handgun aspects of it are more problematic with swing voters. In the end, this election will be decided by white females and ticket-splitting independents. The handgun issue is no huge winner among this group. McCain should applaud the decision, but tread carefully."

SCOTUS II: Is Obama Becoming An Obamacon?

The hoopla over Heller overshadowed the blog commentary regarding the other big SCOTUS decision this week: Kennedy v. Louisiana, which, in another 5-4 ruling, overturned a state law allowing for the execution of child rapists. Again, Obama tried to diffuse a potentially explosive issue by siding with the Court's conservatives (who had sought to uphold the statute).

Liberal bloggers were moderately disappointed with Obama, who has a long record of opposing the death penalty.

Klein: "Some disappointing legal positioning from the Obama campaign in the past few days, as Obama put out a statement disagreeing with [the Kennedy ruling] ... (if Obama's position were adopted, it would be the first time since the 60s that criminals have been put to death for crimes that don't include murder).... Child rape is horrendous, but it's actually particularly tricky from a prosecution standpoint, as the evidence is often from unreliable witnesses, pressured children, and decades-old statements, but juries are (rightly!) appalled by the very thought and tend to want to apply the maximum punishment. ... Obama could have condemned the crime in the strongest terms ('As a father, I'd want to personally gut anyone who harmed a child...') but still opposed the constitutionality and wisdom of the state widening the circumstances under which they're willing to take life."

But most bloggers tended to defend Obama. Many questioned the very premise that because he is generally a critic of the death penalty, he must defend it in all cases.

TNR's Jeffrey Rosen: "Many liberals may be inclined to view Barack Obama's [stance] as the worst kind of poll driven pandering. ... I disagree. In fact, Obama's support for the execution of child rapists wasn't invented for the presidential election; it dates back to The Audacity of Hope, where he wrote: 'While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.' His longstanding opinion on the death penalty is a particularly nuanced one."

Even though Obama sided with the SCOTUS conservatives, some conservative bloggers remained cynical.

Goldberg: "Well, shouldn't it tell us something that the judges he wants to reinforce with like-minded colleagues, AKA the liberal wing, voted in ultimate empathy with the rapist of an 8 year-old girl, and not the girl herself? To his credit -- or to the credit of his realpolitik advisers -- Obama came out against yesterday's decision. But, that doesn't change the fact that he would appoint judges who would vote the same away and has voted against judges who voted the right way."

NORTH KOREA: Not Going South After All

On 6/27, Pres. Bush made the startling announcement that his administration is removing "Axis of Evil" North Korea from its official list of terrorist nations. The gesture was given in response to North Korea's cooperation in beginning to dismantle its nuclear program.

The blogosphere generally hailed the announcement, but the McCain and Obama camps remained relatively quiet. NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Neither candidate has a great deal to say about the recent announcement from the White House regarding North Korea; the tone of both is 'trust, but verify.'"

He then went on to tweak Obama: "I will note that McCain's seems a little clearer on what he wants to see going forward. McCain says that if the deal announced checks out, he's amenable to 'easing' sanctions on North Korea. Obama's, by comparison, has some mushy generic sentences like, 'This is a step forward, and there will be many more steps to take in the days ahead. Critical questions remain unanswered.' In the end, he too wants to verify the North Korean claims and if so, some sanctions can be removed. He warns that if the claims aren't verified, then we have go get tough by reinstating the sanctions. And then consider even more sanctions! (That'll show 'em.)"

The liberal blogosphere -- in a rare feat -- praised the Bush administration for its rapprochement with North Korea.

Joe Klein: "Congratulations to George W. Bush for finally making the correct choice--diplomatic engagement, regional talks that enabled quiet unofficial contacts with the North Koreans, which then led to direct negotiations--in resolving this dispute."

Matt Yglesias: "The excellent news out of East Asia is that Ambassador Chris Hill has not only managed to strike an okay deal with the North Koreans over their nuclear program, but also triumphed over administration hawks and gotten Bush to do the sensible thing. For a while now, Bush has been tilting in a reasonable direction with regard to the DPRK (after years-worth of screw-ups that have forced us to accept a much worse deal than we could have had years ago), a direction that John McCain has denounced in favor of the only approach he knows -- coercion, escalating conflict, and the risk of war. And, indeed, since at least 1999 McCain has been calling on us to reject pragmatism in Korea in favor of war ... But good for Bush and good for Ambassador Hill."

Many bloggers saw the diplomatic victory as a testament to Obama's own approach to diplomacy.

Steve Clemons: "Barack Obama's inclination towards engagement with problematic leaders around the world now is now buttressed by an experience of the George W. Bush administration. Too bad so much of the rest of America's foreign policy portfolio didn't get this same kind of attention."

Phillip Carter: "It's hard to find words to describe the significance of this diplomatic breakthrough -- and the irony that one of the Bush administration's greatest foreign policy successes would come via diplomacy, and not force. ... What I'm hearing through the grapevine is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required so much attention from senior decision makers that it allowed career diplomats and junior political appointees to do their work in East Asia. In essence, the six-party talks needed less attention to work well, so that diplomats and national leaders could get down to business without all of the posturing that goes along with highly public diplomacy. This may or may not be true, but it's an interesting view of how diplomacy can work."

Despite the bipartisan praise for Bush, some neoconservative bloggers were critical of the move towards peaceful diplomacy with North Korea.

Claudia Rosett: "It needs the talents of Stanley Kubrick to do justice to the complete Cuckoo's Nest that American policy on North Korea has become. The State Department wants a nuclear deal, President Bush wants a North Korea peace legacy. And like the hellbent bomber pilot played by Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, undeterred by any last whisper of sanity, oblivious to the realities of the situation, and apparently beyond the reach of any recall code, Condi Rice just keeps barreling on, homing in on that bull's-eye moment, yeeee-hah! -- oh, criminy, that ended in mushroom clouds. Well, this could too."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Annie Get Your Gun

Atlantic's Megan McArdle: "I'm hardly the first person to make this observation, but I don't know why it isn't noted more often: guns are the only weapon that equalizes strength between attacker and attacked. It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference; if you pull the trigger first, you win. This is an enormous social advance. I am all for strengthening the social contract (and law enforcement) so that fewer men commit rape, assault, or robbery. But until human nature has improved so radically that grievous bodily harm has passed from living memory, I don't understand why more feminists don't push for widespread gun ownership."

LEST WE FORGET: Performance Enhancing Guns

New Scientist: "When Olympic sprinters dash down the track in Beijing this August, the fastest athlete may not take home the gold medal. ... Sound from the starter's gun is known to take longer to reach athletes who start from the outside lanes than their competitors on the inside. Now a new study suggests that competitors nearest the gun have another advantage -- the loudness of the bang shocks them into starting more quickly. Together, these extra boosts may amount to more than a tenth of a second in some races, which is easily enough to make the difference between gold and silver."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at 02:25 PM

June 26, 2008

6/26: Why'd You Have To Go And Make Things So Complicated?

The events of the past 24 hours perfectly encapsulate the netroots' complicated relationship with Barack Obama. Yesterday morning, The Politico's Ben Smith reported that the Obama camp plans to "devote some resources to states it's unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming." The news that Obama intends to help Dems in down-ballot races thrilled the netroots, who have been advocating Howard Dean's 50-state strategy for years. Markos Moulitsas wrote:

"This is the reason I supported Obama in the primaries. For a party that has been incapable of looking past the next election (read: Terry McAuliffe), it's refreshing to have a new team in town which realizes that the presidency isn't the be-all, end-all."

All is not rosy between Obama and the netroots, however. Later in the day, Obama indicated that he will support the current FISA bill even if it includes retroactive immunity for telecoms (which constitutes a reversal of his previous position). Obama's flip-flop surprised his more devoted online supporters while confirming the suspicions of others, who haven't trusted Obama since he defended Dem senators who voted to confirm John Roberts and then endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. Liberal bloggers harshly criticized Obama for reversing his position on telecom immunity; Matt Stoller accused him of "waffl[ing] on a core constitutional principle."

Although the netroots overwhelmingly preferred Obama to Hillary Clinton in the Dem primary, their feelings about the IL senator are complicated. On the one hand, they're excited about his fundraising prowess and his commitment to building the Dem Party at all levels. On the other hand, they don't consider him a progressive champion a la Russ Feingold, and they're growing increasingly convinced that they need to work harder to hold him accountable. Moveon.org's Communications Director Ilyse Hogue sums it up:

"Where we see that [Obama] is consistent with the netroots is his organizing and belief in organizing. Obviously there is some policy divergence which is crystallizing this week. [...] We still have some work to do as a progressive movement to not just have candidates speak about our issues but act on our issues."

OBAMA: Party-Builder Extraordinaire

Liberal bloggers are delighted by the Obama camp's plans to "devote some resources to states it's unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "This is the reason I supported Obama in the primaries. For a party that has been incapable of looking past the next election (read: Terry McAuliffe), it's refreshing to have a new team in town which realizes that the presidency isn't the be-all, end-all. The plan apparently is to restrict television advertising to the closest states while investing in a ground operation pretty much everywhere else. That's a solid approach. Orange to Blue candidate Gary Trauner in Wyoming won't be helped so much by Obama ads in his state, but by staff working on voter registration and GOTV. And for a candidate who came within 1,000 votes of winning in 2006 and currently leads narrowly in the polls, this increased groundwork will be golden. This is party building at its finest, and what has been sorely lacking in our party for far too long."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is something I find very exciting. The Obama campaign is using its resources not only to win the presidency, but to insure more Democrats are elected. And, they're not limiting those pick ups to House and Senate seats at the federal level. [...] Obama's campaign wants to also help with state house races, which will impact re-districting. This is revolutionary thinking for Democrats."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "While Obama may be doing this because he can -- his leads in some polls are reaching double digits and his cash advantage is likely to be huge -- he's also showing a remarkable degree of foresight and concern for his party. I mean, I may be wrong (please tell me if I am), but I don't think [Bill] Clinton did anything like this in 1996 when he was doing as well as Obama is now. [...] This should be reassuring news for Democrats, not just because it has the potential to help them across the country, but because it shows that Obama cares about a lot more than being elected. If he's already looking at the size of his congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 (and after, given that he's also targeting state legislatures which will control the next round of redistricting) that reflects a deep desire to push for big changes that require a big majority in Congress (something both LBJ and FDR had when they pushed through big progressive reforms)."
• Ezra Klein: "In November, the two most important questions for those interested in progressive change will be, in order, was a Democrat elected to the presidency? And if so, how big is his congressional majority? Generally, presidential candidates are so intensely focused on the first question, that they have neither the energy nor the resources to affect the answer to the second. Obama, however, is constructing a campaign strategy meant not only to win him the presidency, but build him a legislative majority and party infrastructure that will prove able to support his presidency. Could he fail? Of course. But if he succeeds, he'll have run a campaign that allows him to actually govern, rather than simply get elected."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Many have questioned the wisdom of [Obama's strategy], wondering if it's a smart move to spend money in states there's no way he can win, but the Obama campaign gets that the compete everywhere ethic at the heart of the 50-state strategy isn't always about winning the state at the presidential level. It's also about making the other side expend resources to defend states they've never had to before and it's about impacting the down-ticket races where campaigning really matters. [...] While on the campaign trail Obama may avoid sharp partisan language and play up the virtue of working across the aisle with Republicans, actions do indeed speak louder, and it's become more and more clear to me that he fully understands that real change will only happen the fewer Republicans there are in office at every level."

OBAMA II: Looks Like Someone's In General Election Mode

The netroots are harshly criticizing Obama after he indicated that he will support the current FISA bill even if it includes retroactive immunity for telecoms (which constitutes a reversal of his previous position):

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

TPM's Greg Sargent interprets Obama's statement: "Obama's line on national security here seems to be affirmation of something that many understood already: That he will support the bill even if telecom immunity isn't stripped from it, despite his promise to try to get immunity out of the legislation. If the issue of telecom immunity doesn't override national security, he'll of course vote for the bill with or without it."

The netroots are saddened and angered by Obama's reversal:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "In a reversal of previous policy statements, from October, 2007 and January, 2008, and again in February, 2008, Barack Obama now says telco amnesty just isn't that important. [...] It's disturbing, to say the least, to see that Senator Obama has adopted the talking points of [Maj. Leader] Steny Hoyer and the right on the issue."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama explained, in essence, that he won't jeopardize our National Security in order to hold telecoms accountable under the rule of law. [...] Apparently, we can't be safe unless we immunize telecoms. Dick Cheney couldn't have said it any better himself."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "This is a sad day, especially for those of us who believed Obama when he said he would support a filibuster against retroactive immunity."
• dday: "Obama is totally cool with the precedent of the government giving a slip of paper to a corporation allowing them to break the law. He's cool with the premise of 'we were just following orders' that was shot down at Nuremberg being revived. He's cool with if the President does it, then it isn't illegal. He's cool with a bunch of the other really dangerous aspects of the bill, including the vacuuming up of every communication that leaves or enters the United States without even the caveat that they be related to terrorism. He's cool with a national surveillance state. Just plain cool with it."
• Open Left's Stoller: "The standard-bearer for the party, Barack Obama, [has] waffled on a core constitutional principle that combines big business corruption, national security, and standing up to [George W.] Bush. [...] Obama is limiting his range of motion going forward and showing key progressive allies that he may not be a good faith operator after all unless he can be forced in that direction. And so they will dedicate more energy going forward into ensuring that they aren't embarrassed again by the person that we are all trusting as our party leader."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Before, when he accepted the [FISA] compromise but promised to fight for removing immunity, it was one thing. This is a total collapse and a rapid abandonment of principle. From a voting perspective, nothing really changes. [John] McCain is for it, Hillary [Clinton] would have been, now Obama is. Obama is still the better of the three on a wider range of issues. As to whether I like it, no. [...] I will caution the Obama campaign that 'better than McCain' is not much of a rallying cry. We all remember how 'anything is better than Bush' turned out in 2004."

OBAMA III: Pay Attention To Who He Nominates, Not What He Says

Obama said yesterday that he disagreed with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists:

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Although conservative bloggers agree with Obama's remarks, they're arguing that the judges Obama would nominate as President would have sided with the majority in outlawing the death penalty for child rapists:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "If Barack Obama were honest, he'd admit that any Supreme Court Justice that he'd appoint would come down on the pro-child rape side in the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision. [...] Back in May of 2008, when [Obama] was asked which SCOTUS justices he would 'model', he pointed to [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg and [Stephen] Breyer, both of whom are extremely liberal judges that ignored the Constitution to side with child molesters in the Kennedy v. Louisiana case. So when Obama puts on his best frowny face and says he 'disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children,' it's all election year bullflop. His 'models' supported the decision, anybody he appoints to the Court would certainly support the decision, and if he weren't running for the presidency, you can be almost certain that he'd personally support it as well."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[Obama's statement is] a fine answer. Too bad all of his favorite justices disagreed with him."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Even Barack Obama couldn't stomach this [ruling], in an election year. But that's only a ruse: bad as Republican appointees have often been, any Justice appointed by Obama would be selected precisely for his eagerness to impose his liberal views on 'unenlightened' voters."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Shock: Obama disagrees with Court's decision in child rape case. Actually, not so shocking. Had the decision come four months ago in the heat of the primary and he responded this way, that would have been shocking. As it is, consider this the legal equivalent of his many full-throated statements of support for Israel. Maybe he means it, maybe he doesn't, but he can't afford to be on the wrong side of it politically so his disciples will just have to console themselves with the possibility that it's yet another lie concocted in the interests of getting elected."

OBAMA IV: Flip-Flopping On Guns?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after his campaign disavowed a statement it made last year suggesting that Obama believed that the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Just in time for the General Election -- and the Supreme Court's decision on the D.C. gun ban -- Obama is readying himself to reverse his position on Second Amendment rights."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Team Obama declared the DC gun ban as 'constitutional' on November 20, 2007, during a period of time when he was busy sucking up to the hard Left and their confiscatory inclinations on the Second Amendment. Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign's statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. [...] One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama would appoint judges who would have supported the D.C. handgun ban:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Though Senator Obama is today running ferociously away from his statement of last year that he supported the District of Columbia's gun ban, *all* of the Supreme Court Justices that Obama has said he respected voted against the individual right to keep and bear arms."
• Geraghty: "I expect a lot of discussion about judicial nominations on the trail in coming days, considering that four of the justices ruled that a state cannot sentence a child rapist to the death penalty, but that state can deny almost all of its citizens the right to own a gun. And when asked for his model justices, Obama listed three of those four..."

MCCAIN: A Different Kind Of Republican?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about reports that McCain met with the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay Republican group:

GayPatriot: "GayPatriot has exclusively learned that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain held a personal meeting with the head of the national gay Republicans organization, the Log Cabin Republicans. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed his meeting with Senator McCain earlier today. [...] According to published news reports the Sammon-McCain meeting would be the first face-to-face dialogue between a Republican Presidential standardbearer and the President of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization since the check-refund controversy between LCR and the [Bob] Dole Campaign in 1995."

Allahpundit: "One of Maverick's more appealing mavericky qualities during the campaign has been his attempt to expand the tent by reaching out to minority voters. The rift's not going to be healed anytime soon and he surely realizes it, but this gets us a tiny bit closer to healing it eventually. It's commendable that he's willing to devote resources to the task. What's especially impressive -- or insane, from the strict Machiavellian point of view -- is that meeting with the LCRs could actually cost him votes among the most strident members of a social conservative base that's not real keen on him to begin with and even less so after he dumped [John] Hagee and [Rod] Parsley. Surely there aren't so many gay Republicans and independents that winning them over will offset the potential loss in votes among evangelicals, so what's McCain's game here? Or is there no game at all and he's simply acting out of decency towards a GOP constituency?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: McCain As Achilles

RedState's John Evans offers an interesting metaphor:

"The Greeks in the movie [Troy] feared Achilles because he wasn't fighting for them. He fought for himself, for his own glory, and he took orders from no one. Yet he was their only hope of defeating the Trojans, and as a result they took the risk of using him to accomplish their ends.

McCain is our Achilles. Although he runs as a Republican, he is not beholden to the Party, does not run to implement the total orthodox conservative set of ideals, and swears fealty to no one. As a legislator, he has been unpredictable, sometimes aiding conservatives as with Iraq and fiscal responsibility, other times turning against them as on immigration, ANWAR drilling, and global warming. When the conservative movement says 'jump', he is as likely to say 'screw you' as 'how high?'

Yet, like Achilles, he is powerful. At a time when Republicans seem destined to lose big on all levels this election cycle, McCain holds the line against Obama. His maverick reputation, war record, and propensity for 'straight talk' give him the independent/conservative Democrat support he needs to build on a fractured Republican base and defeat Barack Obama."

LEST WE FORGET: Literary Classics In Three Lines Or Less

McSweeney's Ben Joseph (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

1984
WINSTON: Don't tell the Party, but sex is way better than totalitarianism.
EVERYONE: Surprise! We're the Party.
WINSTON: Oh, rats.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a utopia ruled by children and populated by talking animals.
THE WITCH: Hi, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!

Paradise Lost
ADAM: Paradise has arbitrary dietary restrictions?
DEVIL: They're really more like guidelines.
GOD: Incorrect.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:11 PM

June 25, 2008

6/25: Dueling Narratives

The netroots have never been ones to embrace conventional Beltway wisdom, and that pattern certainly didn't change this week. Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system provoked a barrage of criticism from Washington journalists, many of whom felt that Obama had seriously damaged his reputation. NBC's First Read wondered if Obama's decision had "undercut the delicate nature of his fresh face image." David Broder suggested that Obama's decision could prove "troublesome" for him because he is "less familiar [than John McCain] and more dependent on the impressions he is only now creating." Richard Cohen also criticized Obama's decision and warned that "the character question hangs" over Obama in a way that it doesn't over McCain.

We've noted in recent days how liberal bloggers are upset that pundits are condemning Obama's campaign finance reversal while ignoring McCain's questionable record on this issue. However, it's also worth noting that liberal bloggers are far less concerned than the leading pundits about the political consequences of Obama's decision. While many journalists appear convinced that Obama has seriously tarnished his brand, liberal bloggers are more confident than ever that Obama will prevail in November. FiveThirtyEight.com currently projects Obama to win 344 electoral votes (versus 194 for McCain). Markos Moulitsas and Chris Bowers also project comfortable Obama victories. Bowers recently wrote:

"The long and short of it is that established media punditry has liked McCain more than Obama in the last couple of weeks, but the country disagrees. As such, what we are seeing is the fundamental problem with much election analysis: is the punditry trying to describe what is happening, or are they trying to create the reality themselves?"

It may be the case that the netroots' confidence is unfounded and that warnings from the chattering class about Obama will prove prophetic. Either way, the difference in their views is striking.

MCCAIN: Cohen's Crush

Liberal bloggers are criticizing The Washington Post's Richard Cohen (which they've done before) for his latest column, in which Cohen argues that McCain can get away with policy reversals in a way that Obama can't because McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam gives him more credibility:

"Here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain."

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Shorter Richard Cohen: It's OK for John McCain to pander and flip-flop today because 40 years ago he refused to pander or flip-flop to his North Vietnamese captors."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Richard Cohen explains that while Barack Obama may have a lot of charisma, his character is in question because of his lack of experience. And apparently the only experience that could answer that character question is if he was tortured while a POW."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "So how far will the pundits go to protect McCain's reputation as a 'maverick' -- and how far will they go to explain away his many reversals and flip-flops? The answer could help decide the presidential race. Judging by Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post, the early returns are not encouraging. Cohen offers what has to be the most creative justification for doing this that we've ever seen -- he argues that McCain's flip-flops matter less than Obama's...because McCain was a POW! I'm not kidding. [...] It's been argued that one reason pundits continue to cede McCain his image as a straight-talker is that some suffer from Vietnam envy. The idea is that they sense that they have never been tested the way McCain has, because he endured and survived the ultimate test -- torture -- and hence [they] are reluctant to question McCain's character. If Cohen ever served, it isn't reflected in his official bio, and you probably couldn't ask for a more perfect demonstration of this Vietnam envy phenomenon than Cohen's column today."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Cohen acknowledges that McCain has indeed changed his position on several very important issues, including tax cuts, the environment and campaign finance. But because he was tortured by the VC, this demonstrates that 'there is only so far he will go' in selling out his ideological convictions (never mind that he even flip-flopped on his previous stance against torture!). So while McCain might actually be a disastrous president in the mold of Bush, at least he won't back down when Charlie busts into the Oval Office and demands he lick Hanoi's blood-stained boots -- he'll tell 'em to go to hell, he will! That's rough-'n'-tumble Johnny Mac for ya! Sellin' out to the oil companies is one thing, but at least McCain won't let Charlie call the shots! You really and truly cannot make this shit up, friends."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Richard Cohen has really outdone himself today, writing in his syndicated Washington Post column -- I refuse to link to it -- that John McCain's flip flops deserve less scrutiny than Barack Obama's because McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese. No, seriously. He also lectures us that 'A presidential race is only incidentally about issues. It's really about likability and character.' Well guess what, Dick, the public thinks otherwise."
• Benen: "I will gladly concede that McCain endured torture and abuse that I can hardly imagine as a POW. The nation will always owe him a debt of gratitude for what he endured. But what this has to do with McCain reversing himself on dozens of issues four decades later is a mystery. To hear Cohen tell it, McCain's service during Vietnam is the ultimate trump card, freeing McCain of political responsibility. [...] If guys like Cohen and Broder spent more time examining McCain's radical transformation, and less time rationalizing why it doesn't matter, the electorate might actually gain some important insights into the man vying to be president."

MCCAIN II: If It Feels Good, Do It!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's defense of his offshore drilling proposal. Although he admitted that offshore drilling would not immediately lower gas prices, McCain argued that it would nevertheless have "psychological" benefits:

"I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Is McCain even trying?...He's proposing things he knows won't make a difference, then admits it. In other words, 'It won't do shit for you, but it'll make you feel like something is being done.' That's not beneficial. In fact, it's the exact opposite of beneficial."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "McCain is basing his energy policy on feelings."
• dday: "It's one thing to offer a quick-fix Big Con solution to every problem, it's quite another to TELL everyone it's a con."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Sure, it would be nice, psychologically, to believe that the U.S. has a homegrown energy supply that would decrease our reliance on foreign oil. But drilling offshore would be environmentally disastrous and yield very little output. Investing in alternative energy and mass transit would have a far greater 'psychological impact,' don't you think?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The incoherence here is breathtaking. McCain believes drilling is part of a short-term solution. He also believes drilling offers no real short-term solutions. McCain believes a gas-tax holiday will produce big savings for consumers. And no savings for consumers. McCain believes we need pragmatic policies that work. He also believes we need psychic policies that make people happy whether they work or not. I have no idea what John McCain is talking about. The real question, though, is whether John McCain knows what John McCain is talking about."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Couldn't people use some policies that are beneficial in non-psychological ways[?] Maybe the federal government should provide a cash infusion to mass transit systems so that instead of buckling under increased demand we can improve the quality of people's experience and start running trains and buses more quickly? That wouldn't solve everyone's problems by any means, but it would deliver genuine help to many people in the short run."

MCCAIN III: It Wasn't Him, Charlie, It Was You

Conservative bloggers have varying opinions about McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black, who provoked a mini-uproar when he said that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to [McCain]":

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks Black was correct in his analysis: "Is it somewhat impolitic to express Black's analysis? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be. The Obama campaign has said over and over again that they want a robust debate on national security, but their response to Black and their rejection of town-hall debates says otherwise. The truth is that Obama's appeasement-minded initiatives towards America's enemies have made him look soft on terrorism, and the Obama team wants to keep the debate focused on the economy as much as possible, where Obama's populism can prevail over McCain's market approaches. Any reminder that the world is a dangerous place makes it difficult for Obama."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein isn't so sure that a terrorist attack would benefit McCain: "Jim Geraghty assumes that Black's underlying assertion is obviously true. I'm not so sure. Geraghty's correct that a terrorist attack would shift the debate back to national security, which is McCain's strong suit. However, the debate won't necessarily get framed in a way that's favorable for McCain. If there were another attack, Obama could point to it as the ultimate proof that the 'Bush-McCain' policies have failed to keep America safe, and it may actually feed into the change narrative. The inevitable onslaught of 'what went wrong' news stories pointing to policy errors will surely reinforce Obama."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins becomes the first conservative blogger (that we've seen) to call for Black's dismissal: "John McCain has enough problems as it is without having one of his top advisers making it sound like he's hoping to benefit politically from a terrorist attack. [...] John McCain, to his credit, immediately distanced himself from Black's comments, but he should have fired him. Scratch that. Actually, he should never have had a former lobbyist like Charlie Black working on his campaign to begin with. It just looks bad for a guy who has made campaign finance reform into the centerpiece of legislative career to have a guy like Charlie Black on his team."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: Talkin' 'Bout Bobby

Conservative bloggers are debating the merits of LA Gov. Bobby Jindal as McCain's running mate. The Club for Growth's Nachama Soloveichik doesn't like the idea:

"The Jindal love feast is running into some stumbling blocks. The NY Times has an article analyzing Bobby Jindal's refusal to veto a massive legislative pay increase despite a campaign promise to do so. The next Ronald Reagan? I don't think so."

Other conservative bloggers are defending Jindal:

• Morrissey: "Minnesota state legislators get $31,000 per year for their part-time work. It seems to me that without paying the state legislators a decent wage, Louisiana risks having the only people in their legislature either be rich or able to manipulate their power to get there. [...] Part of governing is compromise, and this doesn’t seem too egregious to me. I understand that Jindal had promised to keep pay raises off the table, but this is a good lesson to Jindal not to overpromise during the campaign."
• The Next Right's idahoconservative: "The Club for Growth, which focused on the less conservative parts of Mike Huckabee's Arkansas record with laserbeam intensity is doing the same thing with Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) in order to boost their favorite candidate for the Vice-Presidency, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC). [...] I disagree with the Governor's decision [on the legislative pay increase], but have the Club for Growth and a few Louisiana Conservatives lost all sense of perspective here? You get a School Choice bill, you get a bill through the legislature cutting business taxes (which was the governor's idea), you get serious reform of State ethics laws, you get more freedom of discussion on public schools on hot button issues like evolution and global warming. And all that gets dwarfed by a State legislative pay increase that while high (the amount paid is $37,500), I can't necessarily say is completely unreasonable. [...] I would agree that there can be some criticism leveled, but as for Solveichik's 'He's no Reagan' statement, I would respond that no one can live up to the godlike image of Ronald Reagan that has been created by fiscal conservatives, no one can live up to it -- not even Reagan on his California record."
• RedState's Leon Wolf: "Apparently, Jindal's acquiescence in the legislative pay raises establish conclusively that he is a witch, and therefore must be burned. [...] As it happens, I agree that Jindal needs more experience before he should be VP or President. However, these shrieking denunciations by fiscons of every minute deviation from standards that are arbitrary and do not account for the realities of the real world. [...] It is by all means appropriate to note that Jindal (and [AK Gov. Sarah] Palin, the subject of this ridiculous attack from the CfG) may lack the necessary experience to be VP. It is another to treat the most talented GOP backbenchers in the country like they are witches who deserve to be burned. With the state that the party is in now, let's not pre-emptively start chucking people who are 98% with us overboard just so Saint Sanford can become Vice President."

Soloveichik responds to Wolf's post: "I am by no means engaging in a witch hunt against Bobby Jindal. My criticism has long been that his record is completely disproportionate to the recent conservative love feast. From Rush Limbaugh declaring Bobby Jindal the 'next Ronald Reagan' to the blogosphere's teenage-like crush, you would think Jindal has been a superstar in Congress and as governor. That is not the case. [...] I have praised Jindal where it is deserved and I would love to be proven wrong over the coming years. But so far, Jindal has not persuaded me that he will be a consistently strong advocate for limited-government, free-market policies. As for Leon's problem with the Club's praise of Mark Sanford, I plead guilty to being impressed with the South Carolina governor. But I think Sanford's record is far more worthy of praise than many of the other names mentioned as VP possibilities, including Bobby Jindal, [MN Gov.] Tim Pawlenty, and [FL Gov.] Charlie Crist."

OBAMA: On Fruitcake Interpretations

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against evangelical Christian leader James Dobson's criticism of Obama, in which he accused the Dem nominee of distorting the Bible and advocating a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution:

• Al Giordano: "This, from a minister (Dobson) whose own interpretation of The Bible leads him to conclude that 'spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely,' that women should avoid the workplace and stay home even when their children reach teenage years because 'menopause and a man's midlife crisis are scheduled to coincide with adolescence, which can make a wicked soup,' and that 'tolerance and its first cousin, diversity, "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy."' Uh, which US presidential candidate has a 'reverend problem'?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama has made no secret that he's wooing people of faith, as a fellow Christian. McCain's Christian bona fides aren't that strong -- he recently got his faith wrong, and he certainly doesn't talk about God and Christ in the real way that Obama does, in the real way that a real Christian recognizes as, well, real. So Dobson appears to be worried that Obama is a real threat, not just to McCain, but to Dobson's own warped view of Christianity. Of course, the real threat to Dobson is that nobody appears to care what he and his ilk have to say anymore. At least not in politics, and that's Dobson's home turf. He may have loads of red-state followers who are still willing to at least sip his Kool-Aid, but in Washington, he's not exactly the cock of the walk he once was. And he knows it."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato accuses Dobson of deliberately using loaded language: "I'm not going to even comment on [Dobson's] own distortions, but I will say that he's just trying to get his flock motivated a little bit. And notice that he calls Obama's interpretation of the Constitution, 'fruitcake.' We know how he feels about gay marriage. See any connection there?"

CBN's David Brody explains that Dobson speaks for conservative Evangelicals, whereas Obama is trying to appeal to younger and moderate Evangelicals: "James Dobson is simply pointing out what millions of conservative Evangelicals are thinking. These conservative Christians have problems with Obama's views on abortion, partial birth abortion, civil unions and statements that contradict basic Christian philosophy. [...] It's important to remember that while Obama will attract some conservative Evangelicals, Obama's main goal is to win over moderate Evangelicals. Also young conservative Evangelicals seem more open to Obama's 'Christian' message of caring for the poor, fighting genocide, healthcare for all and climate change. They also like the fact that he is reaching out to try and find common ground with conservative faith voters. One other quick point: while Obama may not win over conservative Evangelicals he has to be careful that they don't make this a huge issue because if they do watch out. It could have some crossover effect and hurt Obama with more socially conservative Democrats in key swing states."

OBAMA II: Gordon Smith Hearts Obama

Liberal bloggers are mocking Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) for making a TV ad touting his work with Obama:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Just how shameless can Smith get? [...] He's trying to tell the people of Oregon that he's Barack Obama's choice for the Senate in Oregon."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Wow, how desperate is this guy? Incumbent Republican Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith...is now actually using Barack Obama to promote his own candidacy, even implying a quasi endorsement with the opening line. [...] What makes this even more satisfying is that Smith was an extremely early McCain endorser yet here ends up reinforcing the idea that Obama is the consensus builder that he says he is, which completely undermines two central messages being pushed by the McCain camp: (a.) that Obama is the most liberal senator in congress and (b.) that Obama is just a typical politician."
• Open Left's tremayne: "When even Republicans such as Gordon Smith want to align with Obama over McCain or Bush, that's a telling sign of things to come."
• Oliver Willis: "Has this ever happened before? An incumbent senator touting a connection to the opposing party's presidential candidate?"

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks Smith's ad is sensible: "Marc Ambinder says he's never seen an ad like it but is it really that surprising? [...] A blue tide in Congress this year is a given, Obama won the state primary by 18 points over Hillary, and he's already up three against McCain in the latest Survey USA poll. If you're going to bet, this is the way to go. And even if he bets wrong and Maverick pulls an upset, what's the GOP going to do, ostracize him? They need every congressional vote they can get."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Only Hate Him 'Cause He's Winning

Open Left's Chris Bowers responds to Beltway journalists who have been criticizing Obama for (among other things) opting out of the public financing system:

"I was [initially] perplexed by how the punditry could be claiming that Obama was making campaign mistakes even though he has been steadily rising in the polls at both the national and state level. Now, upon further reflection, I think I understand why the concern troll press is so irritated with Obama. It is because, unlike pretty much all Democrats over the past forty years, Obama is both acting like a winner and also actually winning. [...]

Candidates who can raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history don't simply give up their financial advantage so that a few goo-goos will like them better. In fact, not only would Obama be dumping his massive financial advantage if he accepted public financing, but given the $50M gap in cash between the DNC and RNC, he would have faced a massive financial disadvantage. Scratch that -- given that he only leads McCain by $8M in cash on hand, he already is facing a massive financial deficit, and public funds would have made it much worse. Candidates who want to win campaigns don't spot their opponents $50M. By not accepting public funds, Obama [is] acting like a winner."

LEST WE FORGET: The Limits Of Self-Reliance

Dwight Schrute from NBC's "The Office" explains his rules for tipping:

"Why tip someone for a job I'm capable of doing myself? I can deliver food. I can drive a taxi. I can, and do, cut my own hair. I did however, tip my urologist, because I am unable to pulverize my own kidney stones."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:35 PM

June 24, 2008

6/24: The Slings And Arrows Of Fortune Magazine

Fortune magazine's story about John McCain has created quite a stir in the liberal blogosphere. Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for telling Fortune that the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy is "Islamic extremism." They're portraying McCain's statement as evidence that the GOP nominee doesn't know anything about the economy and therefore wants to "turn the entire election into a referendum on national security". The netroots are also accusing McCain of dramatically overstating the danger posed by Islamic extremism when he claims that it threatens "our very existence." Conservative bloggers, of course, share McCain's assessment of the terrorist threat, and this was one of the major reasons that former McCain critics like Hugh Hewitt became such passionate McCain supporters once the GOP primary ended.

Liberal bloggers are also ripping McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black for telling Fortune that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to [McCain]". The netroots have previously urged McCain to fire Black due to his past lobbying work for controversial foreign leaders, and now they're once again calling for Black's head while denouncing his remarks as "sick" and "politically tone-deaf". Meanwhile, the Barack Obama campaign doesn't appear ready to let go of Black's comments, suggesting that the Obama campaign -- like the netroots -- believes that Dems can finally win the national security debate.

MCCAIN: A Noun, A Verb, And Islamic Extremism

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for making the following statement to Fortune magazine, which conducted parallel interviews about the economy with McCain and Obama:

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It's as if McCain is trying to become a parody of himself here. Is his answer to every question 'Islamic extremism'? [...] Two things are remarkable here. First, that McCain genuinely seems to believe that Islamic extremism poses not just a threat, but a threat to the very existence of the West. This is science fiction territory. Second, that he apparently can't come up with any better answer to Fortune's question about economic threats. Not energy, not high taxes, not runaway entitlement growth, not healthcare, not globalization, not any of a dozen plausible answers that would have gone down fine with his base. [...] It's been pretty obvious for a while that McCain is going to try and turn the entire election into a referendum on national security, painting Obama as a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. This seems like an early sign of just how far he's planning to take this. Luckily, Obama seems to be ready for it."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "In its forthcoming issue, Fortune Magazine decided to cover presidential candidate economic policy by putting the same questions to McCain and Obama, and then pasting their answers side-by-side. What Fortune didn't count on was the unintentionally hilarious read. It's as though they put together a side by side interview with a thoughtful Warren Buffett protege and Glenn Beck's drunken, more moronic twin. [...] Guess McCain didn't get around to reading Alan Greenspan's book yet so that he could understand economics, so he went with the Rudy Giuliani 'repeat what scares the bejeebers out of the base' method of answering the questions."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "McCain's answer to any question, including ones about the economy, is 'look at the terrorists!'"
• Atrios: "In defense of John McCain, he does have a point. A grave threat to the economy is the reaction of people like John McCain to what they perceive as a threat, spending hundreds of billions of dollars attacking Bolivia in response to Pearl Harbor."
• Ezra Klein: "There are essentially two sets of premises under which you could answer this question. The first is the real world, which contains likely threats to the American economy. Things like a deep recession that's worsened by a credit contraction. Or oil prices that turn out to be skyrocketing not because of transient speculation, but enduring global instability and a dawning recognition of peak oil. Or a health system that isn't fixed, and is chewing up 30 percent of our GDP in two decades. The other set of premises is the fantasy world. This is more like Marvel's 'What If?' series. What is the Supervolcano explodes? What if we have an 'I Am Legend' style pandemic? Or a '28 Days Later' zombie virus? What if 'radical Islamic extremism' prevails and terrorists establish a global caliphate? [...] McCain's answer, like a lot of his answers, doesn't make any sense. But he wears a dark suit. He's an experienced looking white guy. He stares into 'the void.' He's the Republican nominee for president. And so we're supposed to take this stuff seriously. But it's absurd."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Now, I can appreciate the fact that terrorism can obviously have a real effect on an economy. But McCain seriously believes that radical Islamic extremism is not only the most serious long-term threat to the economy, but to 'our very existence'? I'm certainly not prepared to argue that America doesn't have dangerous enemies; we do. It's just that the politics of fear can lead to a certain unhealthy hysteria. The notion that, at most, several thousand religious nuts with no military equipment and practically no land, could seriously threaten 'our very existence' is ridiculous. The idea that these same violent lunatics represent the 'gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy' isn't much better."

MCCAIN II: Pining For A Terrorist Attack?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's chief campaign adviser Charlie Black after Black told Fortune magazine that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the election would give McCain a boost:

"[Benazir Bhutto's assassination] probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy -- this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

• Benen: "When asked if a terrorist attack would benefit one candidate over another, the tasteful response is to say electoral considerations pale in comparison to the seriousness of terrorism. Instead, McCain's chief campaign strategist effectively said, 'Yep, terrorism would be good for us.' It's a politically-tone deaf remark."
• BooMan: "After 9/11 people dug up several comments that people had made prior to 9/11 where they seemed to be rooting for another Pearl Harbor so that the American people would be more supportive of an aggressive foreign policy. These comments kind of fed the early conspiracy theories that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen on purpose. I guess none of that really matters though, because Republicans keep pining for another terrorist attack to buck up American resolve for an aggressive foreign policy. There isn't really any doubt that a significant number of Republicans would welcome another terrorist attack. Which leads to my question. Why should we trust these people to prevent terrorist attacks?"
• Mark Kleiman: "Fear. It's all they have left. Ever since 9/11, the Republicans, aided and abetted by the mass media, have been doing their best to turn Americans into cowards. It worked on enough people to swing the elections in 2002 and 2004. It didn't work in 2006. I don't think it will work this year. Yes, this election is about 'hope' and 'change.' But more than that, it's about courage. Barack Obama is appealing to the grown-ups. McCain is appealing to the scared little children."
• dday: "If anyone thinks Charlie Black is sorry for saying this, they're nuts. This is completely calculated. [...] He's backtracked on it now, and McCain strenuously disagreed, but the target for that comment were media types. The only reason it is conventionally assumed that a terrorist attack is good for Republicans is that Republicans keep saying it, and when they say it, the media listens. They're perfectly willing to risk sounding ghoulish in the short-term so that they're prepared for every talking head explaining in the wake of a terrorist attack how the Republicans have been enhanced. I'd call it mind control but it's not nearly so difficult; more like that scene where Crocodile Dundee raises two fingers in front of the bull and makes him go to sleep."

Several liberal bloggers are calling on McCain to fire Black:

• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "Is Black hoping for an attack on US soil? He should be fired for saying this."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain is supposedly 'distancing himself' from his top adviser. Sorry, but if the guy is still McCain's top adviser, there's no distance at all. I was ready for McCain's Double-Talk Express, but never thought McCain would stoop to the Terrorist-Talk Express. I mean, if John McCain is a sitting Senator, and his top adviser thinks that a terrorist attack on US soil would help McCain win the presidency, then doesn't that mean McCain has a pretty massive, sick, and deadly conflict of interest?"

MCCAIN III: You Ain't Gotta Like Me; You Just Mad 'Cause I Tell It How It Is And You Tell It How It Might Be

Conservative bloggers believe that Black was simply telling the truth when he said that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would give McCain "a big advantage":

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Charlie Black just said what everyone already knows."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty writes a sarcastic post: "There's no reason to think that after a terrorist attack, Americans would prefer the leadership of a war veteran who's spent his entire career dealing with national security issues. There's every chance that with Americans dead and more attacks possible, they would turn to the former community organizer who, when asked about his military response to terrorist attacks, gives a lengthy answer listing every action except the military response. [...] No, of course, Black is wrong. The American people would eagerly want the guy whose foreign policy advisers contend that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts. They'd love to have a commander in chief who erroneously claims that all of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing have been brought to justice, and who praises the pre-9/11 approach to al-Qaeda terrorism, ignoring the fact that the attacks kept getting larger."

Hot Air's Allahpundit agrees that Black's statement was correct, but thinks it was a foolish thing to say: "[This was] a tin-eared Kinsleyan gaffe, like Harry Reid cooing about the senate seats his party's going to reap from chaos in Iraq. As an observation of electoral reality it may be true but it's far too crass to say aloud, as would be true of a lefty acknowledging that a downturn in Iraq would be a big advantage for Obama's campaign vis-a-vis Maverick's '100 years' comment (which it would, and which is precisely why Reid's still pushing the idea of an 'intractable civil war' even after the media's given up on it). Too bad Black doesn't have the good sense to recognize that."

MCCAIN IV: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is McCain

Liberal bloggers are angry that so many media figures have loudly criticized Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system while ignoring McCain's manipulation of campaign finance law:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I just saw John McCain very gravely lamenting Barack Obama's decision not to accept public financing for the general election campaign and opining about what it says about Obama's ethics and trustworthiness. And I must confess that I'm a little confused why more Democrats are not hitting this preening peacock with the fact that he is as we speak breaking the campaign finance laws and specifically breaking the law on accepting public financing. Having opted into the system and gotten the advantage of it he's now spending freely in defiance of the caps he agreed not to spend over. Not a commitment to Common Cause to try to come to deal, but a legally binding commitment to stay within the public system for the primaries (which, by FEC rules, continues through the nominating conventions). It's almost surreal that McCain is being allowed to get on his high horse on anything remotely connected to the public financing system."
• Arianna Huffington: "Isn't it interesting how, after largely ignoring the issue for the last 30 years, during which the GOP consistently outfundraised and outspent Democrats in election after election, the media are suddenly all atwitter about whether the campaign finance system is 'basically fair'? How dare Obama inspire 1.5 million donors, giving an average of $197 apiece, to help him raise more money than McCain? [...] Amidst all the attacks on Obama's 'flip-flop,' how much have you read in the MSM about the fact that McCain has 'completely reversed himself' on public financing -- and is currently breaking the law on a daily basis, making a mockery out of a campaign finance system he helped create? [...] While Obama's decision is a subject open to debate, the mainstream media should not be allowed to get away with their continued refusal to accurately report on the fall of John McCain.."
• Benen: "For reasons that I haven't quite been able to figure out, McCain's own behavior with relation to the public financing system seems to have completely escaped the attention of political reporters. [...] Of all the issues for McCain to strike a self-righteous note, this is one of the worst. The only reason McCain is not currently under investigation is that the FEC ceased to function a while back. The whole issue of the public financing system is one McCain should be desperately trying to avoid. Instead, he's talking about nothing else, assuming that the media (and Dems, for that matter) won't push the issue. So far, the gamble actually seems to be working."

MCCAIN V: Where's Bill Kristol When You Need Him?

NRO's Rich Lowry thinks the McCain camp should hire conservative New York Times columnist William Kristol:

"There's a sense you never know where McCain is going to be on any given day. Is he zigging toward the center, or zagging right? And on top of this, the campaign feels so defensive -- all about not being Bush and not being Obama. All of this is diminishing McCain, who is a serious, impressive guy for all his flaws. With every clever tactic and worthy small-bore proposal -- whether it's off-shore drilling or the battery prize -- McCain loses a tiny bit more of his stature and his sense of who he is. He needs to be bigger than Obama to win the election, and he needs his political persona -- as a patriotic fighter determined to fix Washington and win the war -- to come out clearly and unmistakably. I think some new blood -- focused just on the big picture -- would help the McCain team. My candidate would be Kristol. He obviously has a keen political mind; he's a McCain guy going way back (and as far as I know has a good relationship with McCain's key people); and he's a conservative who understands the need to move beyond the Bush administration without being panicked by every Bush association."

Other conservative bloggers aren't so keen on the idea:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Bill, of course, is terrific, and I take all your points, Rich. But you want McCain to hire a New York Times columnist who called those opposed to amnesty yahoos? It would be a smarter campaign, but it would send a lot of the same old bad signals to conservatives."
• Michelle Malkin: "With all due respect, adding another Beltway political strategist to the McCain camp isn't going to fix an un-fixable problem. It's not fundamentally flawed messaging, it's a fundamentally flawed candidate. The sooner Republicans reconcile themselves to that, the better."

OBAMA: Looks Like Karl's Projecting Again

Liberal bloggers are slamming ex-WH adviser Karl Rove -- who currently serves as a Fox News contributor and an informal adviser to McCain -- for making the following remarks about Obama "at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club":

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "How many Americans have had the experience of being at a country club and watching some dude with a beautiful date hold a martini and smoke a cigarette? Certainly I haven't. Rove assumes that 'you know this guy' but unless 'you' are a wealthy person from the past, you probably don't know a guy like that."
• Oliver Willis: "What is this, 1952? Who the hell goes to a country club? The most that the rest of us know about country clubs is that they're full of guys like Rove slapping each other on the back. This advice is the sort of advice you would expect from the guy who lost the House and Senate while crowing about 'the math'. So please, Republicans, listen to Karl."
• Ezra Klein: "I really like that when Karl Rove is talking to 'Republican insiders,' he finds it easiest to illustrate concepts by referring to 'types of people you might meet at a country club.'"
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Pretty bold words from the guy whose patron's middle name is derived from the latter's grandfather who started the 'Walker Cup' -- one of the better known golfing events. Besides, isn't Karl Rove the guy who would blackball guys like Barack Obama from joining his club to begin with?"
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Karl Rove [is] revealing more about his own insecurities than Obama's."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Obama is 'the guy at the country club'? As [ABC's] Jake Tapper notes, Obama probably 'wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent.' It should also be noted, of course, that Rove took a man who actually is a country club denizen who makes 'snide comments' about others -- that would be George W. Bush -- and turned him into a regular Joe. Meanwhile, the guy who would struggle for admittance to some of these exclusive enclaves -- Obama -- is now 'the guy at the country club.' Rovian up-is-downism at its finest."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Does this make any damned sense? Since when do people look at Obama and think 'He goes to a country club?' At least the 'radical liberal with black panther racist priest and oh by the way he is a stealth muslim' BS they are peddling makes sense, even if it is a silly and stupid smear, but Country Club? When I think of country clubs, I think of the Enron crowd that puts folks like Mitt Romney and George Bush and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in office. But black liberals from Illinois named Obama? Is Hamas into country clubs or something?"
• Benen: "Rove is going to have to do better than this. Usually his ugly attacks aren't quite this silly."
• Digby: "It's very clever to add in the country club and martini imagery, even though it's patently absurd. Gives it a nice sort of cover to what he's saying. After all, conservatives can't just come right out and call someone an Uppity Negro these days."

OBAMA II: No Immunity For Telcos!

The netroots are urging their readers to pressure Obama and the other Dem Senators to strip the retroactive immunity provision from the FISA bill:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The objective is to strip immunity from the bill. We need to figure out a way to make that happen before leadership caves on this altogether. [...] One way to push on this is to flood the offices of Senators with calls and FAXes telling them to do just that. If they don't hear from you, then they won't know you are pissed -- so let's get to work. [...] Several Senators could use extra contact on this -- uncommitted or wavering Democrats, leadership folks, members of the Gang of 14, and a number of wavering Republicans. Tell them no telecom immunity -- period. It is well past time that respect for the rule of law and the role of Congress in the balance of powers was restored."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Christy Hardin Smith at FDL has all of the key information for pressuring swaying Senators to keep amnesty out of the FISA bill this week. Personally, I think the only remotely plausible pressure points are demanding that Obama complies with his filibuster promise and doing the same with [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd, and by 'remotely plausible' I mean 'something that is, in theory, not absolute zero.' Still, even battles that are almost certain to end in a loss are worth waging until the bitter end."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's John Cole discusses the politics of FISA: "For me, the long-term is in the context of the election, and November is the end-game. With my mindset, you look at the political realities, realize you are right on the issue but the politics are against you, cut your losses and keep working towards changing the game in November. I just don't see anything in the works that will be game-changing regarding this piece of legislation -- it is going to pass, no matter what Obama does. For Glenn [Greenwald], the long-term means the fight must start now, and if you fight now, the election will turn your way, as it will be a reflection of the public's embrace of your willingness to fight. Any of the short-term political concerns that I noted here are of little relevance, and your larger message will carry the day. [...] It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next week with FISA being presented in the Senate. The bill is going to pass, but how Obama fights the immunity provision will go a long way to demonstrating what he thinks the best general election strategy will be for his team. Personally, I think Obama has already shown a willingness to fight and to engage, and that he realizes this issue is lost, but it remains to be seen if that will satisfy those who want a bolder strategy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Image Is Everything

Matthew Yglesias:

"It's interesting that the result of not one but both major parties nominating presidential candidates known as process-oriented reformers has merely resulted in an usually large volume of campaign finance shenanigans -- from McCain illegally backing out of the system after having used public financing to secure a loan, to Obama wriggling out of a commitment to use public financing for the general election. I bet that two years ago, reformers would have told you that a McCain-Obama matchup would be great for their cause. In practice, it's turned out to be terrible.

And I think it's not a coincidence. McCain and Obama both feel they can take the hit on these issues in part because they're both branded as 'reformers' and thus don't need to worry as much about being perceived as corrupt. Years ago, of course, McCain had a different reputation as a consequence of the Keating 5 business and became a reformer in part in order to change that reputation. But politicians who have the clean image can feel free to ditch process constraints whenever convenient."

LEST WE FORGET: Table Names At Our Wedding If We Were Truthful

McSweeney's Harris Bloom makes a list:

• People We Didn't Think Would Come
• People We Invited Solely Because They Invited Us to Their Weddings
• Relatives We Haven't Seen in 20 Years
• Wealthy People
• Sorry, but You Are...?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

June 23, 2008

6/23: Welcome To The General Election, Netroots!

In what the Washington Post describes as "his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee," Barack Obama announced his support of the controversial new FISA legislation. The netroots fiercely oppose this legislation, which dramatically expands the President's power to conduct warrantless wiretapping and gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's unlawful surveillance program. Liberal bloggers are very disappointed by Obama's decision, which they're calling "a big mistake" and "a colossal failure of leadership".

In his statement explaining his support of the bill, Obama said that he would "work in the Senate to remove [the] provision" granting retroactive immunity to telecoms. Many liberal bloggers are urging the IL senator to keep his word. However, it remains to be seen whether Obama will go so far as to filibuster the bill in order to remove the immunity provision, as MoveOn.org is urging him to do.

OBAMA: Oh, Bama...

Liberal bloggers savaged Obama after he released a statement announcing his support of the FISA legislation:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "We'll include Barack Obama in the mix of politicians that apparently think all you who were following the FISA debates are as dumb as day-old pill bugs, and it's depressing as hell to have to do so. He may be the Democratic nominee, but he can still write a milquetoast, self-congratulatory justification for choosing the easy way out with the best of them."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "What Barack Obama has just told us is that he's an essentially conservative democrat who will compromise with reactionaries and totalitarians (the impulse to be free to spy on anyone, with only the executive deciding who, is a fundamentally totalitarian one and has no place in a republic). Whatever sympathies Obama may have for liberalism, or even for the Constitution, he cannot be trusted to fight for either if he feels it is not politically in his interest."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country. Time and again, in his debates with Hillary [Clinton], and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk 'tough.' [...] If there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation. And this time, he abandoned that premise."
• BooMan: "Unless this all part of a brilliant plan to popularize the campaign of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and thereby win some extra states, Obama is making a big mistake in moving to the right of [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter. And even if it is a political move, the FISA debate is about bedrock principles of constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Political dodges and maneuvers are inappropriate."
• Digby: "This is how Democrats always run for national office. Republicans are action, Dems are reaction, particularly when it comes to national security. They've already pounded Obama very hard for his debate statement that he'd talk to foreign dictators and the campaign knows that's just the beginning. The 'Muslim terrorist' drumbeat is all about making people feel uncomfortable with this exotic new guy's ability to keep the country safe. Reacting to that by showing 'strength' on issues like this is a choice I think the Democrats probably don't have to make this time out --- the Republican party is so damaged that I think their usual schtick isn't going to work --- but it's hardly surprising."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "As I said this morning if I were the next President of the United States I'd be happy to be handed unlimited power by the GOP, too. The trouble is that unlike Barack Obama, I'm not going to be President and odds are neither are you."

Atrios thinks this legislation could come back to haunt Obama: "Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an 'abuse of power' scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention."

OBAMA II: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Barack

Disappointed by Obama's support of the FISA legislation, liberal bloggers are urging him to keep his promise to remove the provision granting retroactive immunity to telecoms that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities:

• MoveOn.org has launched a petition urging Obama to "keep his word" and filibuster, if necessary, any bill containing retroactive immunity for telecoms: "On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans. This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. [...] Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, 'It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.' Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to 'support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.' We need him to honor that promise. Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law."
• The Huffington Post's Art Levine: "Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. [...] Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I think Obama's making a terrible mistake by endorsing the 'compromise,' but if he can work with Reid to remove immunity, it'll be a big step in the right direction."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "A President Obama and a Congress with a larger Democratic majority -- if it had the political will to do so -- could repeal the changes contained in the bill, except for amnesty. Of course, given Obama's willingness to support those bad provisions, too, that possibility is waning. However, there's no repeal of retroactive immunity -- once it's granted, that's that. The terrible precedent of letting these corporations off the hook for knowingly breaking the law can't be undone. That's why, in addition to the fact that pitting the Constitution against AT&T did seem the most potent way to fight this politically, we have focused so largely on telco amnesty. That, and for strategic reasons, is why we should continue to press Obama, [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid, [CT Sen. Chris] Dodd, [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold and others who have said in response to this bill, or in response to Dodd's stand last winter, that they oppose amnesty, period."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Color me not all that surprised that Barack Obama, so far, is punting on this issue. He's never really proven himself among the bolder, more progressive senators, which is one of the reasons I was actually sort of stunned by the near monolithic shift toward him among the progressive blogosphere once John Edwards dropped out. But now he has an opportunity, not only as a senator, but as the putative head of the Democratic Party, to block retroactive telecom immunity as he has pledged to do. We've all been told over and over for the last year that Barack Obama is the change we've been waiting for and has a unique ability to reach across the aisle and forge consensus. OK, Senator, now's the time to demonstrate that ability."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Let's hold [Obama] to this October 2007 promise. [...] If Obama does not filibuster telecom immunity, it proves his commitments can not be trusted. That he will say and do anything to win, even if he does not mean it. A test for Obama's credibility is at hand."

Not every liberal blogger is pressuring Obama to remove the immunity provision from the bill. Firedoglake's emptywheel mockingly paraphrases Obama's announcement of his intentions: "I will make a showy effort in the Senate on Monday to get them to take out immunity. I will lose that effort 32-65. But hey! I can say I tried!"

OBAMA III: I Guess Nobody's Perfect...

Several liberal bloggers are trying to reconcile their disappointment with Obama's FISA position with their support of his candidacy:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Obama]'s a politician. He's going to disappoint us. If I were one of those people who I suspect live mostly in the imaginations of columnists at the National Review -- the people who think Obama is the messiah, capable of making the lion lie down with the lamb, cooling the planet with the touch of his hand, bringing the dead back to life, and so on -- I suppose I'd have just dissolved in tears and sworn off politics for life. Luckily, I'm not. And at times like this, I just cast my mind back over previous Democratic nominees -- [John] Kerry, [Bill] Clinton, [Michael] Dukakis -- and think: FISA compromise or no FISA compromise, he's still the best candidate I can remember. Not that I wouldn't greatly have preferred the 'no FISA compromise' option. A lot."
• Benen: "[Obama's] announcement [in support of the FISA bill] reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton's decision to leave the campaign trail in 1992 to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. I still liked Clinton, and I still voted for him, but it was a hard thing to get over. I feel a little like that now, too."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "As disappointed as I am about what passed the House, I suppose it's good to focus on Obama's intent to run as a candidate from the center. Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the 'Obambi' slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations. [...] When he screws up, he'll need us to hold his feet to the fire (and we will: see No Republican at Defense and A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems and FISA posts from yesterday). [...] The election season is upon us, and personally, I couldn't be happier. It means we are one step closer to getting that walking disaster out of the White House, and don't lose sight (even for a moment) of what that means and which party George Bush presides over. And if it means treating our candidate like the imperfect vessel he is, warts and all, so be it. Our guy is head and shoulders above their guy, and it's going to be fun to prove it, FISA notwithstanding."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of 'lily-ness' about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter. Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values."

OBAMA IV: Flippity-Floppity

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's support of the new FISA legislation as a stark reversal of his previous position:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Barack Obama will support the FISA re-write that, though labeled a compromise, is actually a victory for President Bush and the telecommunications industry. As the Washington Post acknowledges, this amounts to a reversal of position for Obama. It follows on the heels of his reversal of position on accepting public funding of his presidential campaign. In both cases, Obama has made the smart move, while confirming that he is not remotely a man of principle."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It's becoming clear even to the Left that Obama has no real firm principles, only ambition. This FISA package doesn't differ much from the compromise Senate bill in February -- one supported by a significant number of Democrats then -- except that it requires a court to certify that telecoms meet the prerequisites for immunity that the first bill granted outright. As Feingold notes, the bill drafts those requirements to ensure that the applications will be approved, as they should be, since the government assured the telecoms that the activities were legal. Obama's stated reason for switching -- that it restores FISA and wiretap statutes -- was true of the previous version as well. What changed? Obama doesn't need the hard Left to get past Hillary Clinton. In fact, Code Pink, International ANSWER, and that 'grassroots movement' will become liabilities in a general-election campaign against a nationally-known war hero. He tossed them under the bus with as much consideration as he did Jeremiah Wright and Jim Johnson."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "The left-wingers who supported Obama and thought he would actually take a stand rather than issue some empty words have now joined that crowd under the Obama bus. Welcome to the general election, folks. Hope you didn't actually believe that 'Hope' and 'Change' meant a new and different kind of candidate. Obama may be just as left-wing as you are -- by all indications, he is -- and just as immune to understanding the way the world works, but he does know how to read polls, and he doesn't have much experience standing his ground under fire. So, while his statement pretty much admits that his 'lines that cannot be crossed' have in fact been crossed, he's just not going to do anything about it. [...] Today, Obama's spinelessness is in service of our national security, so I applaud it. Let's just hope we never see the day when his spine is what we depend on to protect our security."

OBAMA V: A Double Standard?

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against the criticism that Obama has received from pundits following his decision to opt out of the public financing system:

• DemFromCT: "I think the criticism over Obama taking himself out of public financing is silly. The entire campaign finance system is rotten, and Obama is going to publicly finance via small donors, an eminently more fair system than depending on corporate dollars funneled to the RNC and 527's as in past years (that McCain isn't generating 527's at this point is irrelevant -- he's not generating much of anything)."
• Benen: "Barack Obama's decision to skip the public financing system has really enraged the nation's newspaper editors. I've already explained why I think all the hand-wringing is unnecessary. In fact, in some instances, the criticism is backwards -- by sidestepping public financing and raising his own war chest, Obama will rely less on outside, independent groups, not more, which will mean add transparency and accountability to the process. [...] Instead of public financing, Obama is accepting financing from the public. The horror. His spin may or may not be persuasive, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about withdrawing from a flawed system. The conservative scholar who helped write the law said he 'would have sued [Obama] for political malpractice' if Obama hadn't withdrawn from the system."
• The Huffington Post's Jeff Cohen: "There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama. By opting out of public financing, Gibson intoned, the Democrat could obtain 'two times, three times, four times, as much money as John McCain.' 'Let me ask you a question about basic fairness,' Gibson implored of his top D.C. correspondent George Stephanopoulos. 'People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?' It was more a statement than a question, like Brit Hume anchoring at Fox. [...] Are these elite voices truly upset because Obama shifted his position? Are they upset all of a sudden that one candidate has a financial advantage over another? Or is this just the fear and loathing of the Netroots resurfacing -- like when establishment pundits went hysterical as Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "On [Meet The Press], Obama's decision to opt out of public financing is topic #1, and I have to admit it amazes me the way the Republicans are able to pivot on this issue. [...] What gets me is that McCain has completely gamed the system -- his loan scheme with public financing then opting out is currently not even an issue on the show, and it would seem to me that would be at least mentioned. Of course, it is not, for whatever reason. Additionally, this is even more egregious when you consider that this is McCain's signature issue. His name is on the damned bill, and the message he has sent is that the bill is a joke. [...] I never much bought into the notion of liberal media bias...but the longer I am outside the Republican hive mind, the more I recognize that liberal media bias may be the biggest fraud the right-wing has ever gotten away with. It is absurd."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also defends Obama's decision: "I find it hard to get worked up over this. If [Obama] were taking money from a few corporate interests it would be one thing. But finding 1.7 million donors is somehow a threat to democracy? Please."

OBAMA VI: Should Dems Be Worried?

Several liberal bloggers raised their eyebrows at Obama's less-than-spectacular May fundraising numbers (he raised $22M, putting him roughly even with McCain):

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is odd. [...] I wonder what's going on. Perhaps a bit of fatigue during the end of the primary as he lost a few states?"
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Obama and McCain start off even, in fundraising. That's a bit of a surprise. And actually, Obama is behind when we factor in the committees and the GE, but we all expect that Obama will increase his advantage in the coming months. [...] The Obama/DNC total of $47M against the McCain/RNC total $190M is much more of a disparity than I would have expected. But, there lots of upside for Obama, and we'll see how much he closes the gap in June for a good indication. No alarm bells yet."
• Yglesias: "Nobody seems concerned about this but me, but given how accustomed we've all become to the idea that Barack Obama will be able to raise vast sums of money for his campaign, isn't this factoid a little bit striking: 'Mr. Obama's fund-raising slowed abruptly in May, when the campaign raised $22 million, $10 million less than it had in April and an even sharper drop relative to his monthly performances earlier in the year.' What if the small donors who powered Obama's rise look at a guy who's ahead in the polls and who everyone is predicting will shatter financial records and think to themselves, 'why bother.' Small dollar fundraising requires you to overcome collective action problems and too much success may make that difficult. The psychology of donation seems to me to require both 'buy-in' on the part of the donor and also a sense of being embattled."

Oliver Willis isn't too concerned: "On Obama's most relaxed month he's at parity with the GOP establishment candidate."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Ed Morrissey thinks "the wheels have started coming off the Obama bandwagon": "Barack Obama may want to rethink his position on public financing after all. Not only did he lose most of the contests over the last three months of the primary, his fundraising numbers declined during the same period. [...] The wheels have started coming off the Obama bandwagon. His supporters talked about having a $100 million June, but it looks like the Democrats have wrung most of the funds they could get in the primaries. Small wonder that the campaign waited until Friday night to release this information."

OBAMA VII: Getting Ahead Of Himself...

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after he spoke at a podium adorned with an Obama campaign logo that resembles the presidential seal:

• see-dubya: "Some bloggers have postulated that it's too close to the existing Presidential seal, and therefore violates federal law. I don't think that's true; examining the Obama seal at high resolution reveals several differences:
  • Latin motto changed to 'VERO POSSUMUS', which is Latin for 'Si, se puede!'
  • Close examination reveals Obama's seal contains 57 stars;
  • Eagle's left wing is much stronger;
  • The arrows in the eagle's claw have Nerf tips;
  • That's not an olive branch, but actually arugula in the other claw.
  • There is no snake in the Obama eagle's beak. It was thrown under the bus. It was not the snake that Obama's eagle knew these many years."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Presumptuous, ain't he? I guess, on the bright side, they didn't scrap the arrows, which I guess we can read as a subtle signal that he is not, in fact, going to cancel the war."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "In one of the more shockingly presumptuous acts I have ever witnessed in Presidential politics, a non-incumbent candidate for the Presidency of the United States has actually taken the time to design a seal for himself that resembles the Great Seal of the United States and the Seal of the President of the United States. [...] What Barack Obama could learn from King Canute has already been noted, but not only has the Obama campaign refused to take note of Canute's modesty, they have transcended their earlier acts of grandiosity (the waters are really going to stop rising because Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential nomination?) with an act that reveals just how much the Obama campaign resembles a cult of personality."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "What a douche."

MCCAIN: Talking Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth?

Following McCain's off-the-record meeting with Hispanic leaders, liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of adopting multiple positions on illegal immigration:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "On immigration, I don't think either the right or left should trust McCain as far as they can throw him. After initially supporting the DREAM Act, which would give children brought into the United States illegally by their parents the right to qualify for public college loans and in-state tuition, McCain changed course last fall and said he'd oppose DREAM in the future. His new priority, he told the press, was border security. But there's no reason why increasing security at the border can't be implemented alongside a law that would stop penalizing children for their parents' actions. If McCain has any enduring principles on immigration at this juncture, they're impossible to discern."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Given the way the anti-Latino faction is frothing over his secretive little 'I'm your friend just don't tell anyone' meetings with Latinos, it's not really any wonder this town hall wasn't open to the press. His problem is that the same faction is the Republican base. So of course he has to keep it quiet. After all, how else can he reassure Latinos he'll do the right thing on immigration despite being at the mercy of a party full of raging nativists? Heaven forfend he should do it in broad daylight. Someone might get the wrong idea."

Conservative blogger John Hawkins mockingly paraphrases McCain: "Yeah, I lied about illegal immigration to get the nomination. So what?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Come Back When You're Older, Bobby

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer doesn't understand the Bobby Jindal-as-VP talk:

"I have been rooting on Bobby Jindal since before 99.99999% of all conservative politicos had even heard of Bobby Jindal. I have no ax to grind; indeed, I am utterly invested in his success. But I have tremendous respect for the incredibly demands of the presidency, AND for the reality that the vice president could become president at any moment, which is why I am flabbergasted that so many people think so little of how much experience and seasoning should be a requirement for either job. We would all be better off to let Jindal take his lumps, work through them, recover from them, and beat the bad guys in Louisiana for four years, BEFORE he gets elevated to a national ticket."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Puts On Some Nice Pants For Once In His Life

From The Onion:

"OAKLAND, CA -- Hallelujah, what do you know -- reports have surfaced that Michael Bohlke put on a nice pair of pants for once in his 28 years on this earth Monday. Bohlke, who had up to that very moment looked like a lazy bum just sitting there on the couch, stunned longtime critics by putting on a clean shirt, running a comb through his hair for God's sake, and finally getting rid of that ratty Oakland Raiders cap that he's had since, what, the seventh grade? At press time, however, it would apparently still kill Bohlke to shave every once in a while."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:32 PM

June 20, 2008

6/20: Keeping The Pressure On Obama

We're only two weeks into the general election campaign and the netroots are already upset about some of the decisions that Barack Obama has made. First, the netroots are angry that Obama taped a radio ad on behalf of a conservative GA congressman facing a primary challenge from a progressive state senator. While some suspect that Obama's decision was motivated by his desire to make a play for GA, they are nevertheless disappointed by the move and are urging their readers to donate money to the progressive challenger.

The netroots are also disappointed by Obama's silence regarding the FISA compromise bill, which gives legal protection to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities. Liberal bloggers believe that the FISA bill is not a compromise but a "capitulation", and they're dismayed that Obama (who opposes retroactive immunity for telecoms) isn't using his bully pulpit to draw attention to this issue. It's clear that while the netroots are excited about Obama's candidacy, they won't hesitate to criticize him when he steps out of line. It's less clear whether Obama will respond to the netroots' criticism, however.

In more positive news for Obama, the netroots strongly support his decision to opt out of the public financing system. Liberal bloggers are excited about Obama's potential ability to outspend John McCain and expand the general election battlefield to traditionally red states. They also believe that Obama's decision is morally justified, arguing that (a.) his heavy reliance on small Internet donations is consistent with the spirit of campaign finance reform, and (b.) McCain is not beyond approach when it comes to this issue. Conservative bloggers, of course, are strongly criticizing Obama's decision, portraying it as the latest in a long series of flip-flops.

FISA: Don't Say We Didn't Warn You, Blue Dogs

The netroots are furious that Congress has reached a deal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and "give telecommunications companies their much sought-after protections from lawsuits". The netroots have already raised over $250,000 to use against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other Dems who supported the compromise:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas issues "a warning to pro-capitulation House Dems": "When we started this 'netroots' thing, we worked to get 'more and better Democrats' elected. At first, we focused on the 'more' part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the 'better' part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the 'better' part. That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large. We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This FISA bill is] an outrageous clusterfuck. Forty cases currently underway will be dismissed. Congress has never done anything like this, intervening in the legal process to protect the Bush Administration, the telecoms and themselves -- who sat back and did nothing while all this illegal spying was going on. We'll never know what happened. We'll never know the extent of the lawbreaking. [...] We've now raised $207,573 to exact a pound of flesh from Democrats who did this. Top of the list is Steny [Hoyer]. We're working right now on ads and robocalls to start ASAP in his district, so if you'd like to tell Steny how happy you are with his 'leadership' on this one, you can contribute here."
• BooMan: "The Netroots is based on opposition and on unseating congresspeople and senators. That's what we're good at. Ordinarily we would focus on defeating Republicans, but we've become so good at that we'll be quite happy to toss a few Democrats out of office even if it means a slightly smaller Democratic majority. I don't think there is any issue that the Netroots is more passionate about than illegal warrantless surveillance. Any Democrat that votes for Steny's compromise is going to be at real risk of a well-funded primary challenge or, at least, a nasty ad campaign aimed at driving up their negatives."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F: "Use the Capitol switchboard to contact your own representative and let him or her know that we're paying attention. [...] Tell them that if they think people who broke the law should get off scot free, then you demand the same privilege. Ask for an address where you can send your parking tickets to get canceled. Let them know that you'll gladly support a primary challenger against anybody stupid enough to support this abortion of a bill. Let them know that the story won't go away and it won't age well. Hillary [Clinton] lost her primary fight because of a stupid vote for war, and your representative can go down just the same. Assholes who want to sacrifice fundamental American values for a a petty and incredibly misguided political calculation have no place in my party."

FISA II: Why The Silence, Obama?

The netroots are criticizing Obama for not using his bully pulpit to push back against the FISA compromise bill:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As of a couple weeks ago, Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. By definition and in fact. What does he think about the FISA deal? As far as I know he has not weighed in publicly over the question. And I'm hearing that the sachems on Capitol Hill are in the dark as well. When does he show his cards?"
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "A word from Barack Obama at this point would have the potential to change everything. A word from him saying that this 'deal' stands in direct contradiction to the agenda he's bringing to the presidential race would weigh heavily on Majority Leader Harry Reid [...Obama's] voice, properly applied, could be worth a dozen [Senate committee] chairmen. But he's not using it, and in fact, there's no guarantee he ever will."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Obama's quiescence on this fundamental issue is disappointing, but not new. In February, I criticized him and Clinton for going MIA during an earlier spying stand-off, when a coalition of liberal incumbents, netroots activists and the civil liberties groups ACLU and EFF successfully beat back Bush's threats to stop a similar bill. Now things are just worse, for Obama and the Congress. Obama has a much larger mandate to lead the party, yet he is ducking this battle. There is no rationale for Congress to fundamentally alter surveillance policy for Bush's last five months in office, but instead of doing oversight they are granting him more power."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The telecom amnesty bill [represents] everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger."

Oliver Willis explains "why Sen. Obama isn't making a big deal out of the FISA fight": "It is important as hell, but most people simply don't care. The people who are following the race will wonder why a candidate is talking about some obscure federal law when gas is approaching $5/gallon."

Conservative blogger Dan McLaughlin thinks the FISA compromise creates a headache for Obama: "[This] puts Barack Obama in a tough spot: if [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid are marshalling their troops behind it (even though they both personally oppose the deal), and he opposes them, he will yet again be shown to be an extremist outside the mainstream of his own party; yet if he supports the deal, he will have flip-flopped on his prior votes against FISA bills that contained telecom immunity."

OBAMA: Doing Favors For Blue Dogs

The netroots are angry and disappointed that Obama has taped a radio ad on behalf of conservative GA Rep. John Barrow, who faces a primary challenge from progressive state senator Regina Thomas:

• TPM's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: "Barack Obama has cut a radio spot for conservative Dem Rep. John Barrow of Georgia, who favors staying in Iraq and favors immunity for the telecom companies, and he's taking a beating from liberal bloggers over it. Barrow is loathed by the Netroots, and not without cause: During his 2006 reelection campaign he ran an ad saying that 'we can't cut and run' from Iraq. And he was one of the House Dems who sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi demanding that they be permitted to vote for the recent Senate bill giving amnesty to the telecoms. [...] There are multiple reasons why Obama would do this. For example, he might be trying to send a message to certain House Dems that he can help them even in conservative districts, which could keep them from refusing to endorse him -- something that would give the GOP ammo in the Presidential race."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn. If Barrow loses, Obama has a progressive ally in Thomas. If Barrow wins, a conservative House Democrat owes Obama a big favor. It's a no-lose proposition for him. As Obama consolidates his power within the party, note who he is bringing with him in terms of economic policy and foreign policy, and note who he is protecting politically. It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity."
• Digby: "Obama wants to redraw the electoral map and thinks there might be a chance in Georgia. I'm sure that's why he's doing this, even though it's the longest of long shots. I think it's our year, but you can't take anything for granted, so I understand they are single mindedly focused on getting to 270 and have decided they need to make a right turn to do it. It's the predictable (and probably smart) move. I just don't think playing this particular incumbent protection game is worth it unless there's a really good chance of winning in that state. Guys like Barrow are toxic and will pay you back by voting against you when you need them most. It's how they do business. With Obama's recent appointments of centrist and conservative people to his economic and foreign policy teams and his endorsements of such reactionary creeps as Barrow in the primary, it's probably a good idea for progressives to start pulling on our end of the rope a bit. I think it will help him, not hurt him."
• Firedoglake's Howie Klein: "No one who recalls Obama's enthusiastic endorsement of Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont could possibly be surprised [by this news]. Obama, like McCain and [Hillary] Clinton, is a professional politician. One of their basic tenets is the Incumbency Protection Racket. [...] Meanwhile, we are not powerless, we're making a real effort to help Regina overcome this latest obstacle. Please contact her campaign to volunteer, and donate to the campaign directly or to our PAC."

OBAMA II: No Republicans In The Defense Department, Please

Several liberal bloggers are unhappy that one of Obama's senior adviser has expressed interest in keeping Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Obama's administration. They believe that such a move would reinforce the notion that the GOP is more trustworthy when it comes to national security:

• Moulitsas: "I have nothing against having token Republicans in the Obama administration. [...] But the problem with putting a Republican at secretary of defense (or in the intelligence agencies) is that it reinforces the bullshit notion that only Republicans can be effective stewards of our national defense. Whether Gates has been a good Sec of Defense is irrelevant. There are plenty of Democrats who could ably fill that cabinet seat. There is no reason to reinforce a stereotype that has been damaging not just the Democratic Party -- but the nation itself. Iraq, anyone? After the last eight years, Republicans have no basis upon which to claim supremacy on national security issues. This is an election for change. If voters want Republicans at the Defense Department, they can vote for John McCain."
• Yglesias: "The problem with retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is the same as the problem with the idea of appointing Chuck Hagel or when Bill Clinton [appointed] William Cohen -- these guys are Republicans. It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security. If you find a moderate Republican with sound views on key environmental issues and make him or her head of the EPA, that says 'climate change is an important issue and there's bipartisan support for taking action.' If you put a Republican in charge of the Pentagon it says 'Obama likes diplomacy, but even he knows that when the going gets tough you need to call in the GOP.'"

OBAMA III: Well Played, Senator

The netroots believe that Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system is both justified and smart:

• Atrios: "Good [for Obama]. I've long been somewhat wary of public financing in general terms. It was a solution to a problem, but not the only one, not necessarily the best one, and definitely not a solution immune from exploitation such that it could eventually become part of the problem itself. [...] Obama found another solution to the problem, demonstrating that it is possible to raise immense amounts of money from small (and larger, too, of course) donors. It's now part of what presidential candidates will have to figure out how to do to win, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem was never money in politics, it was the concentration of big money."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama should be able to raise at least more than triple the amount that he would have been given with public financing. This, obviously, will give him a financial advantage during the campaign, which should in turn help him win in November. An Obama victory in the general election is worth nearly infinitely more than following an abstract ethical principal about the role of private money in elections, especially considering that the vast majority of Obama's money will come from small donors giving $250 or less. The only donors he would owe his victory to are grassroots progressive activists."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Barack Obama made a smart, cagey move today by announcing that he will forgo public financing -- before John McCain made a final decision on the question. The candidates had previously pledged to meet the other on public funding, but that's a plan that would have benefited McCain, due to the RNC's greater fundraising capacity and larger, more aggressive network of 527 groups. By being first out of the gate saying he'll fund his campaign privately, Obama can somewhat avoid being labeled a hypocrite who backed out of a pledge that would have left him disadvantaged. And of course, it's Obama who has the greater capacity to fundraise online among supporters."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Terrific move. Obama is out of the public funding practice for the GE, hopefully its marks the last time a Democratic presidential candidate ever takes the matching funds -- if [John] Kerry had not done it in '04, he'd be President today. This was a problem for Obama that didn't need to fester till the Fall to solve. [...] Yea, McCain will make some noise about it, but this process story isn't one that many people care about in making up their mind, but it does make a big difference in the kind of campaign that gets run. Goodbye to the battleground [state] mentality."
• Ezra Klein: "Well played, Obama campaign. Well played."
• Oliver Willis: "Time to crush the GOP."

OBAMA IV: Doing The Right Thing

The netroots are defending Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system, even though Obama previously expressed a willingness to "pursue an agreement" with the GOP nominee concerning public financing:

• Moulitsas: "Obama didn't reverse any previous stance. He previously said he would be willing to negotiate comprehensive limits that included 527s and other outside groups. However, McCain made it very clear that he had no interest in such limits on outside groups. And without comprehensive limits on all political players, it made little sense for Obama to tell his millions of small-dollar donors that they couldn't invest financially in his campaign. Of course, Republicans will whine that Obama 'broke his promise'. They've got no other choice. McCain is getting crushed financially, and has little of the popular support that Obama enjoys. The GOP's best hope for financial parity was to cajole and embarrass Obama into opting into a system -- an act that would've been political malpractice for the Obama campaign. When you have millions of people eager to participate in the process, you don't muzzle them, especially not to make John McCain feel better. And as a result, Obama will be able to run a true 50-state campaign, engaging people in every corner of our country. [...] There's one other delicious irony at work -- don't you find it funny that McCain, the Republican, is embracing government funding for the election while Obama, the Democrat, would rather be self-reliant?"
• Hamsher: "Obama has opted out of public financing. Which is really the only sensible thing he could do, unless he thinks the broken FCC and the duplicitous McCain are going to somehow magically change overnight. McCain opted into the public financing system for the primary, then when it didn't suit his purposes he opted out. When FCC chairman David Mason said McCain couldn't just do that without the permission of the FCC, [President George W.] Bush had Mason removed. Like every other arm of the federal government Bush lays his hands on, the FCC is now politicized for the benefit of the GOP. This is the organization Obama is supposed to trust to oversee a fair election?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The system doesn't work. McCain and his far-right allies have already made clear they intend to bend the rules at every available opportunity through independent groups. Had Obama previously pledged to stay in the system? It looks like it. But Obama saw the landscape -- and the coming onslaught from the 527s -- and decided it would undermine his campaign too much if he campaigned with one arm tied behind his back. What's more, he saw John Kerry reluctantly agree to stay within the public-financing system, which ultimately played a role in his defeat. Under the circumstances, Obama's decision is undoubtedly the right one."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "McCain was hoping to tie Obama's hands behind his back by forcing him to opt into the public financing program -- while McCain would still rely heavily on the RNC to finance his efforts. What's more, with the proliferation of 527 organizations willing to say anything and everything to tar Democrats, not the least of which Obama, had Obama opted into the program he would have been hampered in efforts to rightfully defend himself from smears. But Obama didn't fall for McCain's game -- he called the bluff, forcing McCain to show that his real priority in trying to force this election into the public financing program was not reform but rather ambition to be elected President."

OBAMA V: So Much For Principles!

Conservative bloggers see Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system as yet another flip-flop:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "We knew this was coming. We should not be surprised. Barack Obama said he was for public financing of his campaign before he was against it. This is how he has run his campaign and handled every issue from Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright to the security threat that is Iran. Barack Obama is often one way before he is another way. The man is incapable of holding to his word."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue -- Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?"
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "How many times will this cynical, mendacious, unaccomplished faker completely contradict himself and/or directly violate one of his own pledges before the Establishment Media AND the late-night comedians start calling him on it? The gall of this man is beyond belief. [...] One day he says an 'undivided' Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel; the next day he says that only part of Jerusalem should be the capital, subject to negotiations, etc., etc., et-lieing-etera. He said in 2004 that he was basically where Bush was on Iraq, and then campaigned as if he had opposed every step Bush took. And by now, the other examples (amply documented by other bloggers) are legion. The man is a liar, pure and simple. A liar who got a corrupt sweetheart deal from a criminal so he could afford an expensive house. He's a disgrace."
• Dan Riehl: "Let's see what the O-man has been up to, shall we? Breaking his promise on public financing. Oh, and he's been caught shoving some supporters under the carpet because they were wearing head scarves. He's had to distance himself from any number of controversial and even criminal elements from his recent past. And get his wife a makeover, to boot. He all but admitted to deceiving voters on his NAFTA stance. [...] The man's a joke. And if he weren't black, Hillary would have knocked him out early so he could get back to being the partisan hack and Senate back bencher he's barely qualified to be."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama tried to take the high road when he was an underdog candidate for the Democratic nomination. But now that he's won the nomination and the money is rolling in, he doesn't want to abide by the limits imposed by the public financing system. He figures that most Americans don't really care about the details of campaign finance, and that even if he takes a short term political hit, the long-term political advantages of having more money than his rival will be worth it. [...] The central theme of Obama's campaign has been that if Americans can overcome their cynicism there's no limit to what they can achieve. But Obama's devious actions today are a perfect example of why Americans are so cynical about politicians in the first place."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru is pleased that Obama opted out of the public financing system, even though he doesn't buy Obama's rationale: "Two cheers for Obama. Good for him for not making taxpayers fund his campaign. He may have flip-flopped, and explained the flip-flop dishonestly -- that's why I'm not giving him a third cheer -- but he ended up in the right place."

OBAMA VI: Stop Insulting Our Intelligence!

Conservative bloggers don't buy Obama's rationale for his decision to opt out of the public financing system:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I don't have any problem with this, in principle; if it were up to me, all public campaign financing would be repealed. What I find offensive is Obama's dishonest rationalization of his broken pledge. [...] In past elections, spending by Democratic-allied 527s like MoveOn and ACT has dwarfed spending by Republican-allied groups. Thus, Obama is just making it up, trying to deceive his own followers, most of whom, as he knows, are not well-informed. So, while I have no problem with Obama spending all the money he can raise, if the question is whether Obama is a man of his word, the answer is No. And if the question is whether Obama is an honest politician, the answer is also No."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Obama is just as free to take 527 support as McCain -- who has decided to remain in the public financing system -- is. Indeed, there is quite a powerful network of 527s that will doubtless be of assistance to Obama irrespective of whether or not he chose to remain in the public financing system. Obama should cut out his cynical attempt to convince others that he is a poor little lamb vulnerable to slaughter at the hands of Republican 527 groups. Given the fact that Democratic 527s regularly outraise Republican ones, McCain has a greater right to issue that complaint than does Obama. [...] It would be nice if the Obama campaign decided to just come out, tell the truth and admit that the reason it opted out of public financing -- despite the traditional Democratic position that public financing of elections is A Very Good Thing -- was that it would raise more money with which to attack John McCain. But apparently, in addition to working to fatten its coffers, the Obama campaign seems hellbent on insulting our intelligence."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The reasons that Obama offers [for opting out of the system] are laughable in the extreme, and self-contradictory in several points. One of the reasons Obama offers is that the McCain campaign and the RNC take lobbyist money. So does the DNC and many of its subsidiaries. Obama has lobbyists among his major bundlers. It's an absurdly flimsy excuse. So too was the other major reason Obama cites in his video. He claims that the Republicans have mastered the art of the 527, which has nothing to do with public financing. Democrats have their own 527s, and in 2004 used them much more effectively than the GOP, thanks to George Soros and other big-ticket Democratic donors. This excuse doesn't even pass the smell test. [...] The calculus is simple: Obama feels he can raise more money outside the system than he can get inside of it. He wants to blame McCain, the rain, the park, and other things, but it's the money and nothing more. It's a dishonest attempt to explain away Obama's dishonesty."

MCCAIN: You're One To Talk, McCain!

Many liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain is in no position to criticize Obama for opting out of the public financing system, noting that McCain has his own problems when it comes to this issue:

• Marshall: "It was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.) [...] McCain opt[ed] into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can."
• Moulitsas: "Let's not forget that McCain opted in to the public finance system in the primary, then backed out after using his opt-in to secure a loan and get on the ballot in several states -- breaking not just his promise, but the law as well. Of course, hypocrisy never stopped Republicans, and this issue won't be any different. But let's not pretend that hypocrisy isn't there."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "John McCain can't be trusted when it comes to campaign finance. He already scammed the public finance system in the primaries. This is a very smart move by the Obama campaign."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Someone please tell the Republicans and the McCain campaign to shut up about Obama opting out of public financing. Hypocrisy? Blow it out your ass -- your candidate spent years forcing those laws down our [throats] and then just decided to break them and that they did not need to apply to him. Obama didn't break any rules, or break any laws."
• Benen: "It's not like McCain is in a position to condemn from the moral high ground, given the way he played fast and loose (i.e., arguably illegally) with the public financing system during the Republican primaries."
• Singer: "John McCain opted into the public financing program during the primaries, received a material benefit (according to an FEC complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee), then unilaterally pulled out of the program without the agreement of the FEC when he thought it would suit him. By deciding not to opt into the public financing program in the general election, Obama is saying no to the type of cynical gamesmanship of campaign finance law that McCain has undertaken during this campaign."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DHinMI digs up the following McCain quote from '04:

"I think it's wonderful that Howard Dean was able to use the Internet, $50, $75, $100 contributions. That's what we want it to be all about. We want average citizens to contribute small amounts of money, and that's a commitment to a campaign. So I'm for that. I think it's a great thing. I think the Internet is going to change American politics for the better."

DHinMI: "[McCain thinks] it's great that a candidate could largely fund his campaign with small donations, mostly taken over the internet, which is exactly what Obama is doing. At least that's what McCain said in 2004, when he wasn't running for president. Surely he wouldn't say something different today, right? The so-called 'Straight Talk Express' wouldn't contradict himself just because it's politically expedient, would he?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Spotting Rounds

Moulitsas offers his take on why Obama is running ads in traditional red states like AK and MT:

"I'm an old artilleryman. In that biz, the first rounds fired are spotting rounds. The forward observer (or, today, unmanned drones) call in coordinates. The artillery battery fires a couple of rounds, to see where they land (things like wind have an obvious effect). The forward observer calls in adjustments, walking the spotting rounds closer to the target. Once the rounds are hitting their intended target, you 'fire for effect' which means 'unload all you've got on the target'.

I see this first salvo as spotting rounds. If we see positive movement in places like Alaska and Montana, we may see the campaign fire for effect.

Let's hope so. McCain doesn't have anywhere near the resources to fight this war on such a wide front. Their best hope is for a traditional Ohio-Florida campaign to develop. Then, they concentrate their resources on those two states. But Alaska? Republicans can't afford to see states like Alaska become seriously contested."

LEST WE FORGET: New VH1 Show Canceled For Not Being Pathetic Enough

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- In a press release Tuesday, Viacom executives announced their newest hour-long VH1 Celebreality program, Knight Life, with former Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight, has been canceled for failing to reach the wretched depths of the network's low standards. 'Despite some really excellent footage of Christopher vomiting into his hot tub, Knight Life was just not pitiful enough to meet our audience's expectations,' Viacom president and CEO Philippe Dauman said of the show, which only featured three unsuccessful attempts to hit on strippers, two drunken brawls, and a single midget. 'Unfortunately, the program lacked the petty and reprehensible acts that demean all humanity and make for good, compelling television.' Dauman added that VH1 would consider bringing the show back if Knight were to become so distraught by the cancellation that he had to be hospitalized for an unsuccessful suicide attempt."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:17 PM

June 19, 2008

6/19: Deju Vu All Over Again

John McCain's decision to reverse his 2000 position and come out in favor of offshore drilling has produced an oddly familiar reaction in the liberal blogosphere. A similar dynamic manifested itself in early May, when Hillary Clinton called for a temporary suspension of the gas tax. At the time, most liberal bloggers ridiculed the gas tax holiday proposal as a shameless pander that would do little to solve the country's energy problems. Now they're saying the same thing about expanded offshore drilling, arguing that it would do little to lower gas prices (and pointing to the fact that McCain's economic adviser apparently feels the same way). Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, believe that lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling is both good policy and smart politics, and they're encouraging McCain to continue pressing this issue.

MCCAIN: He Was Against Drilling Before He Was For It

McCain has been taking a lot of flak from liberal bloggers for reversing his position on offshore drilling (McCain supported the federal moratorium on offshore drilling in 2000; now he opposes it). Yesterday The Huffington Post's Sam Stein argued that McCain's newfound support of offshore drilling is not only a reversal of his 2000 position, but a reversal of his position from three weeks ago:

"How recent a convert is McCain to this position? In late May, during a campaign town hall, McCain was asked about the prospect of coastal drilling. His answer then was far more nebulous and skeptical of the idea compared to his recent, full-throated endorsement. [...]

'[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels,' McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. 'We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later.'

Those remarks differ widely from the sentiment offered by the Senator yesterday, in which he presented coastal drilling as a move that would 'be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.'"

Stein's post prompted another round of criticism from liberal bloggers:

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "How times change. It's no wonder why no one really thinks of John McCain as a maverick anymore. [...] McCain is desperately, desperately trying to get [Barack] Obama on the defensive about anything, hence this attempt to exploit high gas prices for his own political gain. Although with all those Googles out there, he may not get away with it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "McCain disagreed with himself on energy policy just three weeks ago. [...] He emphasized drilling to help us in the 'short term' again this afternoon. He either doesn't realize new coastal drilling (or 'exploitation,' as McCain inexplicably puts it) wouldn't bring added oil to pumps until 2017, or he doesn't realize it and he's just playing voters for fools. In other words, once again, we're left wondering if John McCain is hopelessly confused or shamelessly dishonest. Regrettably, it has to be one or the other."

Meanwhile, Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot writes: "When the history of the 2008 election is written, the main theme will be the tragic fall of John 'Maverick' McCain who sacrificed every honorable principle he ever had at the altar of rabid and unappreciative Republican base,alienating everyone outside of that shrinking group in the process."

MCCAIN II: Stop This Charade!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's and President George W. Bush's proposal to lift the federal moratorium on offshore drilling:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Even] if we start offshore drilling immediately, and I will throw in drilling in ANWR and anywhere else you want to drill, the price of gas is not going to drop to $2.00 a gallon. It just isn't -- oil is a fungible commodity, is restricted by our refining capacity, and so on. [...] This is not to say that I am fundamentally opposed to offshore drilling -- I have repeatedly stated that any rational energy policy needs to look at every available possibility, to include drilling, increased refining, higher CAFE standards [...], targeted tax cuts aimed at spurring technological advances in green technologies, nuclear power, and so forth, but the notion we can drill our way out of our current problem is absurd. As such, it should surprise approximately NO ONE that this will become a key plank in the 2008 Republican election gambit."
• NJ Sen. Robert Menendez slams McCain and Bush's proposals in a Huffington Post diary: "There are so many reasons why the Bush-McCain drilling plan is absurd. There are hometown reasons, like the threat to our beaches. There are national reasons, like the failure to lower gas prices. And there are global reasons, like the future of our planet. In the end, this is a plan that brings relief to oil companies, not American families. John McCain and George Bush just don't seem to get that the future is in a green economy, renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy efficiency, not in oil. But then again, I guess we shouldn't expect anything more from a president who is an oil man and the candidate he supports, who chose to give his big energy and environment speech in Houston, oil capital of the nation."
• dday: "Private corporations have potentially billions of barrels of oil sitting in capped wells and untapped leased fields, some of which have been lying fallow for as much as thirty years. They won't open them because they are more profitable as untapped reserves, which inflates the stock price and goes directly into the execs' wallets. Bush and McCain say they want more drilling, but the oil companies don't. They want more untapped reserves so they can pump up their balance sheets. This is all a game. Bush and McCain want to funnel oil services contracts to corporate boardrooms, not oil to consumers."

MCCAIN III: Willfully Wrong?

Think Progress' Matt Corley notes that even McCain's senior economic adviser admits that new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on gas prices:

"In a speech that pleased oil executives yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) explained his flip-flop in favor of ending the federal ban on offshore oil drilling by saying he was trying to 'address the concerns of Americans who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline.' But McCain's message was contradicted yesterday by his top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who told reporters that new offshore drilling wouldn't help lower current gas prices."

• Benen: "If one's guiding principle of governing is 'quick, do something, whether it works or not,' then sure, seeing Republican officials scramble to push coastal and ANWR drilling at least suggests they're making an effort. [...] How foolish has this bizarro-world debate become? John McCain's top policy advisor concedes that drilling wouldn't lower prices, but thinks we should do it anyway."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "The politics of oil drilling are heating up, but the facts remain pretty clear that little, if any, immediate benefit would flow from such a policy that McCain and president Bush have embraced in order to attack Democrats. Even McCain's economic adviser has admitted as much."

MCCAIN IV: Keep Pressing This Issue!

Conservative bloggers believe that lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling is both good policy and smart politics:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It's clear that expanding drilling won't lower prices overnight. But that argument has been used again and again every time someone has had the courage to point out that drilling needs to be expanded and thus, we are where we are. If we had taken action in the past, perhaps we would have been able to bring some downward pressure on prices during the present day. [...] There is nothing we can do now about past mistakes but there is something we can do about ensuring that future mistakes are not made. The fact that good policy coincides with good politics is only an added bonus as far as McCain supporters are concerned."
• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "Warts and all, John McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling is a very welcome development. When circumstances change, political leaders should change their policies. And $4 at the pump and $140 in the open market is certainly enough changing circumstances to warrant McCain's constructive shift on offshore drilling."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Republicans need to continue pressing the issue now, while the Democrats are in disarray. And that needs to begin at the top. It's good to see John McCain now focusing on the energy issue on a daily basis."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Voters understand this issue. They know that scarcity is behind the high prices, not oil company perfidy. Democrats are banking on the voters' collective ignorance of supply and demand, but voters know. The GOP has the perfect opportunity to wage an important battle on a clear ideological divide between the Misery-R-Us Democrats and the belief in markets and the vast potential of American technology. They should do so every day."

OBAMA: You Wanna Talk about 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11

Liberal bloggers were delighted by Obama's aggressive response to the McCain camp's attacks on his counterterrorism policies, in which the Dem nominee made the following statement:

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. [...] Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The key line [in Obama's statement] is 'let's talk about 9/11.' Keep in mind that this latest GOP assault is not so much about the substance of the argument as it is about trying to project a sense that the McCain campaign is the one on offense. Obama isn't playing along. Only two years ago, some Dems were still saying, 'please, please, PLEASE, let's NOT talk about 9/11.' Now Obama is inviting an argument about it -- and more important, he's saying it's an argument he will win. That's the key here."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Gotta love it. With statements like this Obama is sending several important messages: 1. he won't be swiftboated; 2. if you attack him, he'll go on offense right back against you; and 3. he's not like those other Democrats who shirked from a debate about 9/11 and national security."
• Oliver Willis: "The last 7 years have been about Republicans pounding their chests about 9/11 and Democrats doing their best to talk about everything else, feeling safe in the cocoon of kitchen table issues. In the vital debate over national security, Democrats simply haven’t been showing up. Barack Obama is doing more than showing up."

OBAMA II: Let's Not Make Bin Laden A Martyr

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's remarks about Osama Bin Laden:

"'First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden's head,' the Illinois senator said at a news conference. 'And if I'm president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive.' [...]

Obama said he wouldn't discuss what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended. But he said the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders are an inspiration because the victors acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order.

'What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,' Obama said."

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "There's nothing more overhyped that this, 'Don't make them a martyr' crap. History as a whole and the war on terror in particular have shown us that it's much more likely that your enemies will be discouraged by the death of an important leader than motivated by it. [...] The whole idea that it would be terrible if we couldn't capture Bin Laden alive and give him a trial is ludicrous. In fact, we would be much better off killing him so that there's no chance that a slick liberal lawyer or a pompous liberal judge will find a way to get him set free."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Here are two questions for Barack: (1) If he were elected, would be amend the 'executive order out on Osama bin Laden's head' so that the terrorist could only be captured, and not killed? (2) Does Barack -- as Howard Dean did -- believe that bin Laden should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Oh, and here's one more: How scary is it that we even have to ask about these things?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Is the world truly worried [that] the U.S. might not 'abide by basic conventions' if it captures Osama bin Laden? How many Americans would object to the waterboarding of Osama bin Laden? If the moment he was brought to a U.S. base, a U.S. soldier -- or better yet, the President of the United States -- walked up to bin Laden and raised a gun and executed him right then and there, would the world complain about the lack of a trial? How many Americans would complain?"

OBAMA III: Color Us Unimpressed

Liberal bloggers aren't very excited about the members of Obama's "National Security Working Group":

• Ezra Klein: "The Obama campaign released the lineup of their 'National Security Working Group' today, and it's not an incredibly exciting group of people. [...] Notable absences include [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Rob Malley, Ben Rhodes, Lee Hamilton, and others who existed on the interesting left edge of the Obama foreign policy universe. These working groups aren't necessarily that important, and it's not hard to figure out why the Obama campaign didn't want to explain Malley's inclusion to hardline Jewish groups, but it's disappointing. Nothing personal, but Madeleine Albright is not 'change we can believe in.' Welcome to the general, I guess."
• Digby: "I'm not sure what to make of this list. I assume that most of it is to let the military and foreign policy establishment know that he isn't going to be employing kids from his Facebook list to run American foreign policy. (Hey, don't laugh. Bush hired interns from the Heritage Foundation to build a new nation in Iraq. It happens.) But [David] Boren and [Sam] Nunn? Really? Did they have to go that far? Those two are the Bobsy twins of back stabbing. There's a lot of ego on that list, but these two really believe the world missed out when it failed to make them Emperor. Let's hope neither of them gets it in his head, as they are wont to do, to put the new president in his place by running to their friends in the press and publicly disagreeing with him in the middle of delicate negotiations. They're older now. Maybe they're wiser too."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is happy about one of the omissions: "When you think about the national security working group that Barack Obama announced today, the most noteworthy names may not be the ones left off the list. Consider Richard Holbrooke, U.N. Ambassador at the end of the [Bill] Clinton administration, 'national security Democrat', and top candidate to be Secretary of State in a [John] Kerry administration. [...] He seems like a noteworthy omission from any effort to gather the great and the good of Democratic foreign policy, not that I'll miss him."

OBAMA IV: Weak Sauce

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing Obama's "National Security Working Group", as well as his national security qualifications more generally:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "When President Bush leaves the White House, Republicans will have held the presidency 28 of the past 40 years. This means that, when Democrats start scouting around for executive branch talent, they must draw from a relatively smaller group of potential personnel. Thus, when Team Obama announced its 'National Security Working Group,' one conservative blogger immediately noted that the list of names was studded with 'Carter & Clinton retreads,' a prospect that is 'Not so Changey.' It will be hard for Obama to argue that his administration will be offer anything other than a return to Clinton-era personnel and policies in foreign affairs and national security. The Democrats seem to believe that voters weary of Bush and Iraq may want just such a reversion."
• Hinderaker: "There are some good people among the thirteen -- Sam Nunn, notably -- but it is heavy on Clinton administration retreads and people with no foreign policy expertise at all, as far as I know, like Eric Holder. [...] It's going to take more than a photo-op with the likes of Madeline Albright, a handful of retired military officers and seventeen flags to make Obama into a credible leader on foreign policy."
• Hewitt: "Barack Obama's key vulnerability is not Obama's penchant for making up facts and mangling history or his de-industrialization-as-an-answer-to-soaring-gas-prices. It is the fact that Barack Obama isn't ready to be a junior advisor on national security to a president much less president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Ominous Sign For McCain?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein:

"I have a column up on today's page warning about how Barack Obama is the post-post-9/11 candidate who wants the nation to return to thinking that terrorism is not a major threat. But another aspect that jumped out at me from reading the Quinnipiac poll is that this may very well be a good thing for Obama, because his attitude seems to reflect the mood of the nation.

Let's take Florida for example. In 2004, 24 percent of the state's voters identified terrorism as the most important issue in the election, and they voted 87-12 for Bush. Only 16 percent named economy/jobs, and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. In today's Quinnipiac poll, only 9 percent of Floridians identified terrorism as an important issue, compared to 53 percent who identified the economy."

LEST WE FORGET: Don't Like The Rumors Being Spread About You? Start Your Own!

Slate's Christopher Beam (h/t Atrios):

"The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he's a Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they've been refuted. Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own. Here's a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating:

From: [Redacted]

To: [Redacted]

Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

• Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.
• A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.
• Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.
• Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.
• Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.
• There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.
• Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:11 PM

June 18, 2008

6/18: Issues Of National Importance

Counterterrorism and energy remain the two big topics in the political blogosphere today. After John McCain's advisers accused Barack Obama of possessing a "September 10th mindset," liberal bloggers pushed back strongly, accusing the McCain aides of willfully distorting Obama's views. Many bloggers are citing Obama's willingness to pursue al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan as evidence that the Dem nominee does not, in fact, favor a "totally criminal justice approach" to fighting terror. The netroots' aggressive response provides yet more evidence that they are relishing a debate over national security issues, thereby challenging the conventional wisdom that this debate plays to the GOP's strengths. The McCain camp clearly thinks it benefits from keeping this issue alive, however, as it dispatched Rudy Giuliani to all three cable morning shows to attack Obama's counterterrorism policies.

Meanwhile, McCain's decision to come out in favor of offshore drilling (which is "a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign") has drawn scorn from liberal bloggers, who believe McCain is rapidly developing a reputation as a flip-flopper. Conservative bloggers remain suspicious of McCain's global warming rhetoric, but they're pleased that McCain now supports offshore drilling. They're also convinced that the GOP nominee has public opinion on his side (and they may be right).

MCCAIN: Attacking A Straw Man?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain's advisers of deliberately misrepresenting Obama's counterterrorism policies when they accused him of possessing "a September 10 mindset":

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If you listen to the audio of the McCain campaign's conference call, McCain's advisors are responding to a position that Obama does not actually hold. [...] Does Obama have a 'totally criminal justice approach' to fighting terror? No. You can read his speech on counterterror policy here. There's a lot in it about things other than law enforcement, including things like this: 'I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.' Moreover, as Jonathan Chait points out, it was just a few months ago that McCain was criticizing Obama for recklessly threatening to go after terrorists in Pakistan. It's a bit odd that he is now supposed to want 'to take us back to the bad old days of going after terrorists with prosecutors rather than predators.' Did Obama say, yesterday, that he favors a 'totally law enforcement approach'? No. He said that we can track down terrorists 'within the constraints of our Constitution,' and that the prosecutions of the 1993 bombers were more successful than what we are now doing at Guantanamo. The only way you can construe his position as the McCain campaign people do in this conference call is to lie about it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Even by the standards of the McCain campaign, this [attack] is unusually stupid. In the reality the rest of us live in, Obama has repeatedly emphasized an aggressive counter-terrorism policy, focused on intelligence gathering, law-enforcement operations, and military operations. Indeed, when Obama talked about pursuing al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, McCain and his allies suggested that Obama was being overly aggressive. [...] The political reality of this is that McCain is losing, his campaign is feeling antsy, so the same tired conservatives are trying to use the same tired scare tactics, hoping voters won't realize that a) they've heard all of this before; and b) the attacks don't actually make any sense. I'd almost feel sorry for the McCain gang if their demagoguery wasn't so ridiculous."

Interestingly, conservative blogger Allahpundit (sort of) agrees that Obama is "getting a bad rap": "This is the guy, remember, who wants a troop build-up in Afghanistan, and who (in)famously said, 'If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will.' [...] As I read his comments to ABC, what he's saying is if we capture guys instead of kill them then they're owed basically the same constitutional protections as criminals -- a novel and worrisome legal position, as Mark Levin tries to explain to George Will, but not proof that due process is Obama's tippy top concern."

Most conservative bloggers do not interpret Obama's comments so charitably, however:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If Obama really intends to make the 1993 [WTC bombing] trial the model for handling terror detainees, he should be prepared for some tough questioning about the consequences of that option."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama does have one thing going for him when he talks about scaling back our efforts against Islamic terrorists -- wishful thinking. No doubt many voters would find it comforting to be told that we can go back to letting the police and the courts worry about terrorism."

MCCAIN II: The Netroots Counterattack

Following the McCain camp's attack on Obama's counterterrorism policies, liberal bloggers are slamming McCain's foreign policy views:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "So Barack Obama tells Jake Tapper that we can fight terrorists and follow the constitution at the same time ('for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial'), and we get the standard talking point reaction from the McCain team. You know the drill: naive, September 10th mindset, etc. etc. All the usual dumb little campaign comments. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a real conversation about this? We could compare, say, the amount of terrorism we've stopped via police work, intelligence, international cooperation, financial interdiction, and so forth, and compare it to the amount of terrorism created by our military intervention in Iraq. And then we could talk about how the real September 10th mindset is the one that says it doesn't matter what other people think of us because, you know, we've got the biggest military in the world and we can squash 'em all like bugs anyway. I say: bring 'em on. Let's talk about who's naive vs. who's learned some lessons from 9/11. The sooner the better."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The GOP philosophy has for years now been that we need to hit the terrorists hard where they aren't, while letting problems in Central Asia fester because they're difficult. [...] Military force will play a role in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, but it simply has a limited utility in dealing with the problem. If you don't recognize that, you wind up blundering down the Bush/[Donald] Rumsfeld/McCain/[Doug] Feith road of sending troops to Iraq because Iraq contains good military targets rather than coming up with an actual strategy for fighting terrorism."
• The Reality-Based Community's Quincy Adams: "McCain needs to distract from the fact that his and George Bush's policies precluded an effective attack on Al Qaeda ever since Bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora. It turns out that the McCain campaign can't debate policy issues; it can only resort to Rovian name calling. There is no hope that McCain would change the tone in Washington."

TPM's Josh Marshall calls out the McCain aides who participated in the conference call: "I don't know if I can expect anybody else to point this out. But check out the participants list of the McCain campaign's conference call this morning calling Barack Obama 'naive' and 'delusional'. Look at the names of the two worthies making these accusations. Randy Scheunemann and Jim Woolsey. Let's track back for a moment here. Both were top supporters of disgraced charlatan and accused Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi in the lead up to the Iraq War. Woolsey, in addition to being one of his top DC confidants, was actually Chalabi's lobbyist. Needless to say both were also big advocates of the most lurid and far-fetched claims about Saddam's phantom WMDs. [...] Delusional and naive? I'd say both of these guys are really overdrawn in that department. These two simply have too much egg on their faces to be hurling those claims at anyone else."

Meanwhile, TPM's Greg Sargent is pleased by Obama's aggressive response to the McCain camp's attack: "If there were any doubts that the Obama campaign would respond aggressively to the sort of soft-on-terror attacks that felled John Kerry four years ago, Obama put them to rest today. [...] It's hard to believe right now, but it was only two years ago -- in the spring of 2006, during the midterm elections -- that many national Dems were still struggling to persuade themselves that they could win an argument against the GOP on national security. Obama, clearly, suffers from no such confidence deficit. Perhaps more important, he's saying so. Loud and clear."

MCCAIN III: Flip-Flop Alert!

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that McCain once supported the federal moratorium on offshore drilling that he now opposes:

"During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the 'special interests in Washington' that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same 'moratoria should be lifted' and proposed incentives for the states 'in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.'"

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for changing his position on offshore drilling:

• Think Progress' Matt Corley: "Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) offered 'a bit of a capitulation to the oil companies' by announcing that he would end the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. Not only is McCain's move a break with environmental activists, but it is also 'a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.' [...] In 2000, McCain promised to 'never lose sight' of fundamental principles on the issue."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "This is yet another flip-flop for McSame, who when he was running against [George W.] Bush, derided calls for offshore drilling as being driven by 'special interests in Washington.' He looks more and more like Bush all the time."
• dday: "[McCain is] trying to please two classes of voters at the same time. On the one hand he wants to prove his commitment to doing something about climate change. On the other, he has to keep the global warming denialists in his base, who have called him a 'liberal Democrat' just for talking about the issue, at bay. So he calls a mandatory cap 'voluntary,' suggesting that he has no interest in the policy whatsoever. And he's paradoxically called for an end to the offshore drilling ban in coastal waters, a signal to the hard right that in the end, he values the oil companies over breathable air and a manageable climate."
• John Kerry criticizes McCain in a Huffington Post diary: "In Houston today, candidate McCain will tell the people that he used to call 'special interests' that just because two oilmen are leaving the White House doesn't mean the gravy train has to end. Back in 2000, he promised he would 'never lose sight' of the importance of protecting our natural heritage. Today his campaign reversed McCain's longstanding position and endorsed drilling off our coastlines. Oh -- and Senator McCain's reform agenda of getting tough on Big Oil? Now Candidate McCain is against any windfall profits tax to fund renewable energy. [...] More than a few people have asked me how the John McCain I knew so well, and teamed up with on CAFE standards in 2002, has ended up here. I can't fully answer that. But I know that the Senator McCain I knew, and who will always be my friend, is very different from this candidate McCain."

MCCAIN IV: Welcome Aboard, Maverick!

Although they're critical of some of McCain's environmental positions, conservative bloggers are praising the GOP nominee for coming out in favor of offshore drilling:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It's nice to see that John McCain is in favor of removing the ban on offshore drilling (note the popularity of the proposal). [...] It should be noted that the Obama campaign has come up with no proposals whatsoever aimed at increasing the supply of oil in order to alleviate current price pressures."
• The Weekly Standard's Jaime Sneider: "John McCain has set things up brilliantly: He proposed a gas tax holiday and now supports offshore drilling, both very popular ideas with the American public and bound to lower gas prices at least temporarily. Compare that with Obama, who says he is favor of higher gas prices. Sure, Democrats can accuse McCain of flip-flopping. But that's not going to resonate for a few reasons. First, McCain's change is analogous to Bush's foreign policy shift after 9/11. It's a response to a paradigm shift, and the public is going to understand a guy who says prices are so high that he's reconsidered his position on offshore drilling. Second, Obama is now attacking McCain for an energy bill Obama voted for and McCain voted against."
• Glenn Reynolds: "A lot of people see [the energy issue] as an opportunity for McCain, and I think they're right. Hairshirt environmentalism never seems to do well with voters."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This news comes as a relief to consumers who have waited for some promise of action at any level of the government. [...] Only new supplies can address the rising demand for oil as well as runaway speculation."
• Hinderaker: "With oil prices shaping up as the dominant issue of this campaign season, evidence is growing that Republicans can win in November if they get behind a program of aggressive energy development. [...] The Republicans' biggest problem is that they can't be the party of economic growth and affordable energy unless John McCain supports the initiative at the top. So far, he's getting better, but is far from the full-throated advocate the party needs. Today McCain gave an energy speech in Houston -- the first of several he will give over the weeks to come. As we previewed last night, the highlight of McCain's speech was his endorsement of offshore drilling. [...] That's good, obviously. But McCain larded it up with ritual invocations of the global warming myth. [...] And he's never going to come around on ANWR. [...] McCain needs to emerge as an aggressive, enthusiastic advocate of affordable energy and economic growth. If he can do that, he, and the Republican Party, will sweep to victory in November. Unfortunately, with McCain it is often one step forward and one step back."

Meanwhile, RedState's Bluey thinks congressional GOPers should do everything they can to promote offshore drilling: "The party's nominee, Sen. John McCain, gave his colleagues a big boost this week with an endorsement for offshore drilling. While McCain's energy position is far from perfect -- ANWR remains off limits for him -- Republicans can't let that slow them down. They should take this fight to the Democrats at every opportunity. And they can begin by shutting down the Senate if Democrats refuse to allow offshore drilling."

MCCAIN V: Sorry Chuck, But The Netroots Agree With MoveOn

Liberal bloggers are defending MoveOn's new anti-McCain ad and criticizing NBC Political Director Chuck Todd for calling it "a borderline shameless ad". In the ad, a young mother holding a baby addresses McCain:

"Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "News flash, Chuck: All troops start as babies. Every one that gets sent belongs to someone. You don't like it? Take it up with the management. This campaign won't have any shortage of shamelessness, borderline or otherwise. Here's hoping [you] will drop your pearls for long enough to get concerned over...oh, I don't know...100 years in Iraq, rather than the 'use' of a baby. Frankly, I don't think there are too many people out there who think Bush/Cheney/McCain's 'use' for their babies is any less shameless."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I get why discussing McCain's Iraq-related policy ideas and acknowledging that they will [affect] lots of people is impolite. But not discussing them, and worse still, a journalist on a TV channel that has access to the public airwaves in return for looking out for the public good actually suggesting that others should not discuss them, is, well shameless."
• Oliver Willis: "In [Todd's] world, liberals aren't allowed to produce ads that tug at heartstrings, just conservatives."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "I hate to say I told you so to all the bloggers that praised [Todd], but in the blink of an eye the Villagers have turned on MoveOn. For all those that thought Chuck Todd was so cool -- guess what? He's going to stick with the Villagers every time. I'm not saying that he's wrong all the time, but in the end, you'll wind up with this. And the right wing doesn't even have to engage them in the MoveOn ad because the Chuck Todd's will never need any convincing to attack the left. They will instinctively do it to appease the right wing and demonstrate to them that 'I'm not part of that crowd.'"
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "John McCain cavalierly suggests that he would be fine with an occupation of Iraq for 100 years, as long as casualties end. But under no imaginable circumstance is that possible. So where Chuck Todd sees a 'borderline shameful' ad and Joe Scarborough crows about independent groups getting into the mud, others see a powerful but fair ad that translates the possible consequences of McCain's disastrous Iraq policy into a tangible, real-world reality."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I think [this ad] rocks. The Republicans would like nothing better than for you to think of our military as a bunch of robots, and not men and women, sons and daughters, moms and dads. This new ad from MoveOn says what a lot of parents are thinking -- hands off my kid. John McCain is pro-war. He loves what we're doing in Iraq, and he'd like to see the same in Iran and elsewhere. George Bush has already broken the US military. In order to support John McCain's wars we're going to need a draft. John McCain's wars will be fought by your kids. So, is it unfair to tell John McCain to take his hands off your kid? I don't think so."

MCCAIN VI: Stop Swiftboating Our Nominee!

Conservative bloggers are slamming MoveOn's anti-McCain ad:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Like the terrorists, MoveOn hides behind their women and children. I realize this is harsh to say and don't even believe it makes a good, fair analogy, but it was my first thought when I watched it. I mean, what kind of group uses a young mommy and her baby to make partisan smears?!"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This is one of the most despicable, scurrilous ads I've ever seen. Tony Schwartz may no longer be with us, but his spirit of below-the-belt, fear-mongering, negative campaign ads is alive and well. Will the establishment media decry this as an effort by an outside group to, 'swiftboat' John McCain?"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Mom here hasn't yet grasped that (a) President McCain won't be setting Iraq policy for the next 18 years, let alone the next hundred, (b) MoveOn's candidate of choice has himself been dropping some dark hints lately about 'tactical readjustments', and (c) whether McCain and the military can have her son is, um, up to her son, not her. The left (or at least the segment that MoveOn represents) still hasn't quite accepted the idea of a volunteer military. If you enlist, it can only be because you were somehow forced -- through a draft or, per Charlie Rangel and Waffles, through economic hardship."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain thinks the ad will backfire: "Being a father of six, I'd call that ad another MoveOn.org blunder. Republican leanings are most pronounced precisely among the Middle American married-with-children demographic, and I expect the MoveOn ad to produce nothing but an angry backlash -- especially considering that John McCain's own son volunteered for the Marines. MoveOn is very good at stirring up the left-wing base, but they're tone-deaf when it comes to the rest of America. They surely didn't focus-group that ad, or they never would have released it, since it's a hanging curveball delivered straight into McCain's wheelhouse."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let's Agree To Disagree

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru offers McCain some advice:

"In 2000, Joe Lieberman had to move left on school choice, Social Security, and affirmative action to get on the Democratic ticket. After his shift in positions, he was aligned both with Al Gore, the presidential nominee, and with his party. McCain's choice is going to be trickier, since on several issues he himself is not in alignment with his party. If he picks a vice-presidential nominee from the conservative end of the party, should he make that nominee profess agreement with him on global warming, immigration, stem cells, and the like?

I think the answer to that question is a clear 'no.' For one thing, there would be no point in picking someone conservatives like while forcing him to abandon the positions that made conservatives like him in the first place. It might even make conservatives less supportive of a McCain candidacy if they think he is trying to remake the party in his image. [...] It could even, somewhat paradoxically, undercut McCain's case that he is a maverick Republican if he insists on making other Republicans conform to his views. By far the better course, if McCain picks a running mate who is to his right on these issues, would be for that vice-presidential nominee to emphasize those issues where they agree but forthrightly admit to their disagreements. The veep nominee could say that he understands that President McCain will call the shots in his administration but that he will feel free to offer the president his own views in private."

LEST WE FORGET: Oh, What Could Have Been

ESPN's Bill Simmons relays an anecdote told to him by his friend who attended Game 5 of the Lakers-Celtics series:

"A friend of mine sat courtside with Matt Damon in seats to the left of the Lakers' bench. During the third quarter, with Damon cheering on the Celtics in a green Celtics cap -- great job by him, by the way -- [Lakers coach] Phil Jackson barked at Damon, according to my friend, 'Sit down and shut the f--- up.' After getting texted that story, I spent the rest of the game rooting for a Boston comeback win, followed by Damon pulling a Will Hunting and asking Jackson, 'Hey, Phil, do you like apples? (PAUSE) Well how 'bout them apples!!!!' Didn't happen."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:01 PM

June 17, 2008

6/17: Debate Substantive Issues? Yes, We Can!

Lately, it seemed as though political bloggers were following the lead of the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns and focusing on relatively minor issues instead of engaging in substantive policy debates. Fortunately, that appears to be changing. Liberal bloggers are hitting McCain hard over his recent remarks about his emissions plan, in which he appeared to advocate a cap-and-trade system while simultaneously rejecting a "mandatory cap" on carbon emissions. Many liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of not understanding his own proposal, while a few are accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting his plan in an effort to avoid angering either environmentalists or the business community.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are hitting Obama equally hard for statements he made concerning his approach to fighting terrorism. Conservative bloggers are joining McCain's advisers in accusing the Dem nominee of possessing a "September 10th mindset" that will lead to more terrorist attacks.

MCCAIN: It Depends On The Definition Of The Word "Mandatory"...

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of misunderstanding his own emissions plan after he and a reporter had the following exchange at a press conference (emphasis added):

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Watch in amazement as John McCain fails to realize that a cap-and-trade system necessarily involves a 'mandatory cap' on carbon emissions. Obviously the root of the issue here is that McCain doesn't understand anything about carbon policy and doesn't care about it either. But he wanted to sign up for a 'centrist' solution on the sexy issue of climate change, so his staff came up with a plan. But 'mandatory cap' sounds like the lefty position, so McCain thinks he must not have it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what 'mandatory cap' means, in this context, is like not knowing what a 'strike' is in baseball."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "One need not be a policy wonk to be a good candidate and a capable president. But it's not too much to ask that presidential nominees have at least a passing familiarity with their own proposals, especially those the candidate places enormous significance on. [...] It's tough to know for sure whether McCain is hopelessly confused or shamelessly dishonest, but given his remarks, I'm afraid it has to be one or the other (or perhaps, I suppose, a little of both)."
• Grist's Kate Sheppard: "[McCain's response is] completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory -- hence the 'cap' in the name. This isn't the first time McCain has misunderstood his own policy on cap-and-trade. In the Republican debate in Florida in January, he also denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon."

Other liberal bloggers don't think that McCain is confused about his emissions plans; rather, they believe he's deliberately misrepresenting his position in order to avoid taking a side:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Does a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan mean that greenhouse gases would be capped? You'd think so, but in a press conference this morning we learned that apparently John McCain thinks otherwise. Is McCain confused again? Maybe, but more likely it's just politics as usual, a way of being all things to all people. He wants credit for taking climate change seriously but he also wants credit for being business friendly, so he offers up a cap-and-trade plan and then insists that it doesn't actually involve a cap. This is garden variety double talk, but he can get away with it because he knows that no one in the press corps will actually challenge him on an issue of substantive policy."
• Mark Kleiman: "Umm...Senator? If there's no actual cap on greenhouse-gas emissions -- a binding cap, that companies actually have to comply with, rather than just a helpful hint -- then there's nothing for companies to trade. A voluntary cap-and-trade system is like dry water. It's hard to tell how much of McCain's cranky-obtuse-and-forgetful-Grandpa personal is genuine, and how much of it is a shtick designed to allow him to be on both sides of all issues. Compared to clarity, it has huge tactical advantages for someone in McCain's position: a solid conservative (in the debased current sense of that term) running for President of a country thoroughly tired of that brand of conservatism."

MCCAIN II: We Can Drill If We Want To, We Can Leave Those Dems Behind

Conservative bloggers are pleased that McCain called for the lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling for states that want to permit it:

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "[This was] a big step forward on drilling. Very good news."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "John McCain believes states hould have the right to engage in energy exploration off their coasts. That makes a lot of sense, given sky-high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil. Barack Obama is complacent about high gas prices -- and seems to believe that Americans would be, too, if the increases had come about more gradually. Just another example of our choice in November."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Would there be some huge environmental impact if we drilled ANWR or off the coast of Florida and California? Honestly, no, there wouldn't. The only reason lefties won't say that is because then they'd have to tell people the truth: they oppose drilling because they're generally anti-capitalist and also because they think high gas prices are a good thing. Politically, that kind of honesty costs you elections, so this is just one more thing the libs aren't going to tell the truth about."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker calls McCain's statement a "small step forward": "McCain announced his support for lifting the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. [...] At the same time, McCain reiterated his opposition to drilling in ANWR. He has a long way to go on energy policy, but I believe he will give a speech on the subject tomorrow. We'll see whether he has more to say."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter links to a new Rasmussen poll indicating that "67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states": "Americans Want to Drill, Drill, Drill...This should come as welcome news to John McCain who will be making a formal call for increasing energy exploration off our coastlines, by way of lifting existing oil moratoriums, in a Texas speech late this afternoon."

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, accuses McCain of flip-flopping: "Just a recap: McCain was AWOL on the windfall profits tax debate in the Senate (a failed [Jimmy] Carter relic that he says he'd be 'glad to look at'). He had nothing to say about Rep. John Peterson's effort to lift the offshore drilling ban when it was up for a vote last week. And as I noted back on May 22, he has channeled the entire Democrat presidential field's class warfare rhetoric and repeatedly referred to the oil industry's 'obscene profits'. Now, he's announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and will give an energy speech tomorrow. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque."

MCCAIN III: Does He Really Want These People On His Side?

Yesterday we briefly discussed McCain's 6/14 meeting with disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. The Politico's Ben Smith reports that Paula Abeles, the Clinton supporter who organized this meeting, previously worked on behalf of Thomas Jefferson's white descendants in an effort to exclude Jefferson's possible black descendants from family gatherings:

"A key organizer of John McCain's meeting Saturday with former supporters of Hillary Clinton is best known for her role in another bitter American fight: The effort by some white descendants of Thomas Jefferson to keep his possible African-American descendants out of family gatherings. [...]

Abeles first made the news in 2003, when she and her husband, then-Monticello Association President Nat Abeles, led the fight to keep members of the Hemings family -- descendants of Jefferson slave and, some historians believe, mistress Sally Hemmings -- out of a gathering of the Monticello Association, which is made up of lineal descendants of the third president."

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the revelations:

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "It looks like John McCain could have another controversial campaign associate on his hands. This time it comes in the form of Paula Abeles, a former Clinton-backer who has now taken a lead in organizing support for McCain among women voters. One problem, as Ben Smith has discovered: Abeles previously attained notoriety in 2003 as part of her husband's association of Thomas Jefferson descendants, working hard to keep out any of Sally Hemmings' African-American descendants. When it was discovered that she'd used a fake Internet identity to undermine the efforts of Jefferson's alleged black descendants, she said it was necessary to make sure the family reunion was 'a calm and civilized gathering.'"
• Yglesias: "This, of course, is the faction of Clinton supporters -- people who don't like black people -- where McCain has a very good shot at picking up new voters. The people who backed Clinton on feminist grounds or because they thought she had the savvy to deliver big time progressive legislation probably won't be following in Abeles' footsteps."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "It's worth expanding, I think, upon how deeply racist and out-of-the-mainstream folks like Abeles are. [...] Those Jefferson descendants who continue to reject their black brethren are facing off against both science and history, choosing to embrace an outdated and, quite literally, white-washed image of their scion. Hearing that Abeles supports McCain will only push more Clinton supporters -- the vast majority of whom are committed Democrats and fairly progressive -- into Obama's camp."
• Kleiman: "This ought to cool the ardor of any of the Hillaryites-for-McCain who aren't stone racists. [...] Note that the McCain folks allowed Abeles to make the guest list for the teleconference and meeting. She's not just some random supporter: she's the person the McCain camp wanted to work with, or the person they judged could best reach out to the potential McCain supporters from the Clinton camp."
• hilzoy: "Ben Smith cites an AP article, which is kind of incredible: apparently, Ms. Abeles spent a considerable amount of time pretending to be a 67 year old black woman on an internet chat group in order to find out how members of the Hemings family might be planning to get into the event. [...] I have to wonder: with all the things in the world that one might choose to spend time on -- being kind to a child, helping the sick, the halt, and the blind [...] -- what kind of person would decide that the thing she really had to do was keep actual descendants of Thomas Jefferson out of a meeting of descendants of Thomas Jefferson? Couldn't she think of a single non-repulsive, non-spiteful, non-racist thing to do? I also wonder: hasn't the McCain campaign figured out about Google yet?"
• Atrios: "Only the best supporters for McCain."

OBAMA: Wake Me Up When September Ends

Conservative bloggers are joining McCain's advisers in criticizing Obama's anti-terrorism policies:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy accuses Obama of living in a "September 10th America": "The fact is that we used the criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years -- from the bombing of the World Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously, we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be precise). [...] As a national-security strategy...and as a means of carrying our government's first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure. A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. [...] Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Perhaps worst of all his many terrible positions, Barack Obama wants to return to the anti-terrorism model of the 1990s -- the criminal justice model. [...] On issue after issue we have enormous clarity on the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, but nowhere are these stark differences more important than on how the two men would conduct the war against jihadism. John McCain will instruct the military to continue to wage it wherever necessary to prevent its return to our shores. Barack Obama will attempt to prosecute terrorists after they kill who knows how many Americans even as he badmouths the American justice system."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I've always thought from the very beginning of this election that more than anything else, Barack Obama's candidacy was tapping into a desire among a growing part of the electorate to move into a post-post-9/11 world in which terrorism is no longer a central issue. This is what has scared me most about his candidacy. The only way terrorism can succeed is for civilization to become indifferent to its threat. Terrorists strike most effectively when we aren't paying attention. Normally, Obama's argument for moving on from 9/11 is subtle, as he promises to 'turn the page' or end 'the politics of fear.' But now he is making the specific argument that we should go back to the 1990s way of handling terrorism, when it was treated as a criminal justice matter rather than part of a larger war. [...] Our old policies allowed terrorists to increase the frequency, boldness, and sophistication of their attacks while were reactive. And now Obama offers 'change' that would represent a return to the failed counterterrorism policies that were in place prior to 9/11."

OBAMA II: Sending A Message To Hillary?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that the Obama camp has hired ex-Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the VP nominee. Most liberal bloggers see Solis Doyle's hiring as a sign that Obama won't choose Clinton as his running mate:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil. [...] According to two close Clinton confidantes, the Senator and Solis Doyle have not spoken since her firing months ago. And there is a sense that bad blood lingers between the two."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "If the goal of the Obama campaign was to have a Clinton ally in place to 'ease' the transition, the very last person they'd pick is Patti Solis Doyle. [...] Obama won't get credit for hiring a top Clinton aide who Clinton no longer talks to. As Ben Smith noted, 'many' Clinton backers 'view Solis Doyle as a bit of a traitor for having signaled that she'd move to Obama before the primary was over.' [...] Given today's news, I think the likelihood of an Obama/Clinton ticket is more remote this afternoon than it was this morning."
• Drum: "I didn't realize that Solis Doyle had become so estranged from Hillary Clinton after she was fired as Hillary's campaign manager. Far from her hiring being a conciliatory gesture, the developing conventional wisdom is that Team Obama is sending the same kind of message to Team Clinton that the Tattaglia family sent to the Corleones in The Godfather. 'It's a slap in the face,' Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. [...] Another Hillary supporter puts it even more bluntly: Hiring Solis is the 'biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics.' If this is true, it's beyond bizarre. Obama has every incentive in the world to make nice with Hillary, and nothing in his past behavior suggests that he's given to gratuitous insults like this. Either the conventional wisdom is wrong, or else there's a much deeper game going on than anyone thinks."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, a fierce Obama critic, calls the hiring "a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton": "Unity? Not if the Obama camp has anything to say about it."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, in contrast, thinks Solis Doyle's hiring is a sign that Obama will choose Clinton as his running mate: "The hire of Doyle raises the chances that Clinton is the VP choice of Obama. You'll recall, in 2004, that [John] Kerry went out and hired a [John] Edwards staffer for this position, in the weeks leading up to the announcement of Edwards as VP. This is more likely a couple of months, but still, it seems fairly overt, yea?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas is confused by the hiring: "This is beyond bizarre. It would certainly be weird to see Doyle as chief of staff of the person who fired her quite publicly just a short while ago. But Doyle and Clinton go way back, so it's plausible. But it's even weirder for the Obama campaign to hire a chief of staff for a veep candidate who has yet to be chosen and who may have his or her own staff he or she might feel more comfortable working with. This sort of position is too important to impose on the veep nominee without consideration over whether they can work well together. So all in all, weird."

OBAMA III: Another Friendly Face At Fox News

The netroots are buzzing about the news that Lanny Davis -- Bill Clinton's former Special Counsel who annoyed liberal bloggers with his aggressive advocacy of Hillary Clinton in '08 and CT Sen. Joe Lieberman in '04 -- will join Fox News as a contributor. The netroots expect Davis to be a terrible surrogate for Obama:

• Moulitsas: "Ha ha, Lanny Davis is headed to Fox News. Shocker! It's a win-win for Fox -- they get to claim to present 'both sides' of an issue, while featuring the most ineffective 'Democratic' surrogate in television history."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "So many possibilities -- how about a one hour show with Lanny and Geraldine Ferraro? They could call it 'In Search of Reagan Democrats' or the 'Racial Resentment Power Hour.'"
• BooMan: "Once you realize that reality has a liberal pro-Obama bias, FOX News is a good match for you. Lanny Davis should enjoy pontificating from the ashheap of history with his pals Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. I know that he will be an effective advocate for our nominee during this election, and a strong voice for our party next year."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Will top Hillary surrogate Lanny Davis be using his perch atop FOX News to sabotage Obama's candidacy? And if so, will Hillary do anything about it?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The State Of The Race

NRO's Yuval Levin:

"[The Atlantic's] Marc Ambinder offers some helpful analysis of the spate of recent national polls. Although he does not quite put it this way, his reading seems to confirm the view that this election will be about whether the public finds Barack Obama adequate -- if he passes a kind of minimal bar, he will win. If not, McCain wins. It's an up or down vote on Obama more than a choice among alternatives. So far, some crucial constituencies remain unpersuaded, and Obama is underperforming in ways that ought to worry his campaign [...] But as Ambinder points out, these voters are still open-minded. I think he's right in saying 'they are ready to be persuaded, as opposed to waiting to be dissuaded.' Not an ideal situation for McCain, to be sure, but it could certainly be a lot worse in a year like this one. And of course, these are national polls. If you look at the crucial states individually, especially Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest, the problems that emerge for Obama in the national polls are all the more serious, and McCain's chances are even better. There are some very plausible paths to victory for McCain, most of which would have been pretty surprising a few months ago."

LEST WE FORGET: Grandmother Proud To Have Lived Long Enough To See First Viable Female Candidate Torn Apart

From The Onion:

"PEORIA, IL -- Seventy-six-year-old grandmother Anita Graney told reporters Monday that she was 'overwhelmed with pride' for having lived to see the first viable female presidential candidate in the nation's history so successfully run into the ground by vicious media attacks and hubristic, arrogant miscalculations. 'Hillary [Clinton] showed America that a woman can be politically destroyed just as completely and heartbreakingly as any man,' said Graney, a lifelong feminist. 'What an amazing example for today's young women who aspire to fail spectacularly at the highest levels.' Graney expressed hope that one of her granddaughters might someday be the first woman to get utterly eviscerated in a nationwide general election."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:10 PM

June 16, 2008

6/16: Silly Season

This weekend was a fairly quiet one in the political blogosphere, as many bloggers are still coming to terms with Tim Russert's death and discussing his legacy. That said, the fur continued to fly over a few (relatively) minor issues. John McCain sent the netroots into a mini-uproar when his campaign postponed a fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of TX oilman Clayton Williams, who made an offensive joke in 1990 in which he compared rape to weather. Liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain hasn't gone far enough to distance himself from Williams, and they're urging him to return the $300,000 that Williams helped raise for his campaign. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are mocking Barack Obama for borrowing a line from The Untouchables while speaking at a Philly fundraiser.

MCCAIN: This Probably Isn't The Best Way To Court Hillary Supporters

McCain postponed a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of TX oilman Clayton Williams after ABC News contacted the McCain camp regarding a controversial statement that Williams made during his unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor:

"Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: 'As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.'"

Liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain hasn't gone far enough to disassociate himself from Williams, and they're urging him to return the $300,000 that Williams had helped raise for his campaign:

• The Field's Tracy Russo: "A man who has such a disgustingly cavalier attitude towards something as horrific, violating and criminal as the rape of a woman has no place in politics, let alone polite society. This is a man who should be shunned by anyone with a conscience. That includes Senator McCain. It's not enough that Senator McCain cancels an event because the media got wind of it. [...] Senator McCain should publicly reject and denounce this man. He should donate every single dirty dollar that this man has raised for him -- all $300,000 -- to an organization working to combat rape in our society -- like RAINN or RVA. And he should apologize immediately and completely to his female supporters for daring to entertain the thought of keeping company with this despicable, disgusting individual."
• Oliver Willis: "So a guy makes a sick joke about rape that was highlighted in a campaign ad, but the McCain camp still thought it was perfectly fine to take his money and have a fundraiser with him until the press comes a knockin'. [...] I guess the McCainiacs didn't do 'A Google'. Or, more likely, they did and they don't care. Here's an idea: Tell John McCain to give back the $300,000 he raised via a man who jokes about rape."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "The President is first and foremost a moral symbol, a leader in whose person America places its trust. McCain, by only breaking ties with a strong financial backer who treats rape as a trivial activity after the media caught him, is showing that trust in him would be woefully misplaced. This is not a partisan gripe, and I would praise McCain is he did what Russo suggests, and gave the money to a charity that focuses on rape victims."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "[Williams' statement is] far beyond sexist. It's despicable and bordering on sociopathic."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "This pig says he's raised $300,000 already for McCain. And by McCain saying he's still planning on having the fundraiser later this year, he obviously has no problem with this guy or his attitude towards the rape of women. Then again, McCain is the guy reportedly called his wife the c-word. I'm thinking McCain's outreach to Hillary voters isn't going so well."
• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "You can tell that after the c*nt story, the profile of McCain's failed first marriage in a major British newspaper and his atavistic positions on birth control and abortion, McCain might be getting a bit worried about seeming insenstive to women. So under the 'Straight Talk Express' goes Clayton Williams. [...] Not to say it wasn't the right thing to do. But then again, so would be firing [campaign manager] Rick Davis. And he hasn't done that yet. This move is all about the women's vote. Nothing more. Nothing less. Oh, and Clayton Williams, he has already raised 300K for McCain. So Mr. Reformer, what are we gonna do with that campaign loot now?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "When the McCain campaign got asked about [Williams'] 'lie back and enjoy it' remark, they swiftly canceled the fundraiser. So that was the story -- McCain cancels fundraiser. Except now it turns out that the fundraiser's not canceled and the $300,000 is still being banked, the venue is just shifting to someone else's house. But to whatever extent McCain would have owed Williams favors pre-'cancellation' he still owes him favors now. It was the bundling of the contributions, not the use of Williams' house, that was the thing of value Williams was offering McCain."

MCCAIN II: No Habeas Corpus For You

After the Supreme Court ruled that foreign terrorism suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, McCain called the ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for his response:

• Digby: "If you wondered whether John McCain was a just a partial or a complete jackass before now, this will surely end all speculation. [...] The right to petition for habeas corpus is about as fundamental to our nation as it gets. McCain is a bloodthirsty man, always has been. He's not one of those guys who comes from military culture and learned the limits of war and came to suspect the military industrial complex, like Ike. He's a hot tempered, flyboy type, unsuited to leadership and not known for thoughtful contemplation. [...] His experience gives him tremendous credibility to be an historic leader on this issue. But he's being a political whore, as he is so often, completely ignoring his duty to the constitution and the necessity of putting the United States on some sort of moral footing after these eight years of perfidious constitutional radicalism."
• Open Left's Daniel De Groot: "McCain shows he's a real conservative...ie someone who hates the idea of an enforceable constitution [...] I am hoping Obama will respond to [McCain's remarks]. Since he has already issued a statement in support of the ruling, and is a constitutional lawyer and all, perhaps he could explain to John McCain just how the Bill of Rights works. In particular, the right to petition a court under the grand writ of habeas corpus is not, and was never intended to be, contingent on US citizenship. For a bunch of so-called 'strict constructionalists' and 'original intent' fetishists, you'd think conservatives would get this."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "For [wrongfully imprisoned] GITMO prisioners like [Mohammed] Akhtiar, the only hope of their release is the beneficence of John McCain. How many more of those like him are held (and abused) in GITMO [and other places], deprived of review by a judge of release? And John McCain would love to keep it that way."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Kagro X argues that this year's presidential election will have major implications regarding the composition of the Supreme Court: "What does a 5-4 decision in a case like Boumediene v. Bush mean? In Republicanland, it means everything the Supreme Court has told them they've been wrong about for the past 7 years is one vote away from being suddenly right. And staying that way forever. One more vote, and torture isn't unconstitutional. One more vote, and indefinite detention on the president's say-so isn't unconstitutional. One more vote, and warrantless wiretapping isn't unconstitutional."

MCCAIN III: But What Does He Really Believe?

Several bloggers are discussing Ben Smith's report about McCain's meeting with disgruntled Clinton supporters such as Will Bower, the founder of a group called "Party Unity My Ass" (PUMA). Smith reports:

"Bower said he'd liked McCain's answer on judges, in which he 'pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg and [Stephen] Breyer.'

Another person who was present, but asked not to be named to avoid conflict with fellow Democrats, said he'd pressed a McCain staffer on McCain's position on same-sex marriage.

The staffer 'said it was the same as [John] Kerry's position,' he said."

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is critical of McCain's outreach efforts: "McCain's left-wing outreach campaign continues. Thought you'd like to know what he was purring into the ears of the disgruntled Hillary supporters known as 'PUMAs.'"

Liberal blogger Steve Benen is also critical of McCain's efforts, albeit for completely different reasons: "In attempting to divide Democrats, McCain has decided to try blatant deception, and hope Clinton supporters don't know the difference. [...] On judges, McCain thinks voting to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer is evidence of moderation. That's absurd. Breyer was confirmed with an 87-vote majority. For that matter, 96 senators voted to confirm Ginsburg. Voting with the majority was hardly a bold act of courage for McCain. Indeed, even pointing to these two votes is a classic red herring. The question isn't whether McCain voted to confirm qualified judges nominated by a Democratic president, the question is what McCain will do to the judiciary if he's the president. We already know the answer to that question -- because McCain has told us over and over again of his deeply-held desire to make the courts even more conservative than they are now. [...] As for gay rights, for McCain to equate his position with John Kerry's is utterly ridiculous. Kerry supports civil unions, McCain doesn't. Kerry supports allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military, McCain doesn't. Hell, McCain actively supported and campaigned for an amendment to Arizona's constitution that would 'ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.' Similar to Kerry? Not so much."

OBAMA: That's The Chicago Way

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama for borrowing a line from The Untouchables while speaking at a Philly fundraiser:

"Barack Obama is warning supporters that the general election fight between him and John McCain may get ugly, but the Illinois senator is vowing not to back down.

'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,' Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.

'We don't have a choice but to win,' Obama said, joking that he has heard 'folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles games.'"

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The Chicago way? That's not change you can believe in..."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Is he endorsing concealed-carry and the right of people to defend themselves with firearms? Or are people only allowed to 'bring a gun' to defend themselves in debates, rather than in life-and-death situations? Obama would 'bring a gun' to argue that people shouldn't have the guns in the first place."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I guess I'm less offended than most on the right by Barack Obama declaring during the weekend that, 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.' Sure, he once supported a nationwide ban on handguns. But he's never supported a ban on gun metaphors."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The McCain camp is zinging Barack Obama for his not very presidential tough-guy remark, 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.' One can imagine the howls if McCain ever said something like that. 'Angry!' 'Bully!' That's what they would say, no doubt. And they'd be right. That's, to borrow a phrase, a schoolyard taunt, not the language of a presidential nominee."

OBAMA II: Pulling A Cosby

Conservative bloggers haven't had many good things to say about Obama lately, but several of them are praising Obama for his Father's Day speech, in which he "sharply assail[ed] absent black fathers":

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "There's very little that Barack Obama says that's worth applauding. In fact, most of his shtick consists of completely empty rhetoric about hope and change combined with a few dashes of whining and liberalism. However this Sunday, Barack Obama was spot-on for once. [...] I guess, even a blind squirrel grabs a nut every once in a while..."
• Lewis: "This strikes me as refreshing, helpful, and also politically sagacious. This is the Obama that would be hard to stop."

Less surprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan was also delighted by Obama's speech: "We're lucky to have this guy at this point in history -- black and white. Really lucky."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Goodbye To The Master

Matthew Yglesias examines Russert's legacy:

"With Russert's passing, the country loses one of its most influential journalists -- host of Meet The Press, debate moderator, and trend-setter. He was a model for other, lesser hosts. Russert's signature innovation was to ditch the staid, respectful interviewing method implicit in a title like Meet The Press (as if the program were a social brunch) in favor of a more aggressive, at times bullying, in-your-face style. With the shift in approach came a change in style -- away from the classic television personality's search for patrician authority in favor of a newfound quest for working class authenticity.

The fruits of Russertism are not always sweet. I've written critically of how Russert's bloodsport approach tends to obscure rather than illuminate the policy issues at stake in elections. [...] Still, anyone working professionally in the political journalism game needs to respect Russert's achievements. He transformed the industry because, on some level, he made political coverage on television work, and created models that have kept political TV relevant in the 21st century. He consistently beat his Sunday Morning show rivals in the ratings."

LEST WE FORGET: Sarcastic Interns

From "Overheard in the Office":

Boss: Hey, do you think you could go down to the cafeteria and get me one of those teeny tiny things of 1% milk for my cereal?

Intern: You know, with my dual degree from business school, I think I may be able to swing that...I'll bring another intern as backup just in case.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

June 13, 2008

6/13: Welcome To The General Election

If you need evidence that the 2004 "swiftboating" of John Kerry fundamentally changed the way politics is played in this country, look no further than the first week of the general election between Barack Obama and John McCain. During the end of May and the beginning of June, rumors about a tape of Michelle Obama making inflammatory statements roiled the blogosphere, eventually making their way onto Fox News where they were repeated by both GOP and Dem consultants. When a McClatchy reporter asked Obama whether the alleged tape existed, Obama strongly denied it, criticized the reporter for "spread[ing] scurrilous rumors", and decided that "it was time for a more aggressive solution to the rumors". This week his campaign launched a website, "Fight The Smears", that seeks to debunk myths about Obama. This move represented a significant departure from the conventional wisdom that it's best not to dignify rumors with a response.

Liberal bloggers welcomed the Obama camp's decision to launch the "Fight The Smears" website. They acknowledge that the strategy is "risky", since the website may serve only to amplify false attacks on Obama and introduce them to a wider audience. That said, liberal bloggers are convinced that Kerry made a mistake by not addressing the Swift Boat Veterans earlier, and they believe that it would be similarly foolish for Obama to ignore the Internet rumors about him and his family. Matthew Yglesias summarizes the liberal blogosphere's view of the matter: "Will this work? I dunno. But it seems smart to get out in front of these things rather than pretending that they'll go away if decent people ignore them."

OBAMA: Fighting The Smears

Liberal bloggers welcomed the Obama camp's decision to launch a website called "Fight The Smears" in an effort to debunk false rumors about Obama that have been circulating via email:

• The Atlantic's Yglesias: "Obama campaign launches new Fight the Smears website dedicated to knocking down sundry lies (about the pledge of allegiance, about Obama being a Muslim, etc.) floating around in chain emails slash Fox News broadcasts. [...] Will this work? I dunno. But it seems smart to get out in front of these things rather than pretending that they'll go away if decent people ignore them."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "The site is basic -- a list of smears with explanations of why they're lies and a way you can email the information to your friends. It sounds like a simple idea -- that's why I think it just might work -- but it's also rather novel. Other campaigns, John Kerry's among them, had the idea that responding to attacks legitimized them. While in some circumstances responding can backfire, I think in this case the Obama campaign has the right idea -- they're not running ads denouncing these claims, they're providing a source targeted at people Googling these stories or trying to convince others of their inaccuracy."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Will it help? I'd argue that part of the reason Kerry lost in 2004 was because he didn't effectively respond to smears, and from that point of view, a rumor-debunking site certainly couldn't hurt Obama's campaign."
• The New Republic's Michelle Cottle: "It's a risky proposition, creating a laundry list of lies and exagerations that many voters may not have yet heard. But I think it's a shrewd one. The crazies, nasties (think Roger Stone) and conspiracy theorists will only get crazier, nastier and more conspiracy-minded as this race goes on, and Obama can't risk ignoring their blatherings -- no matter how unbalanced the charges seem or how many times the campaign has pointedly refuted them. [...] Obama's success will hinge in large part on his ability to soothe the gut-level, often subconscious fears of people who are skittish about him because they're not quite sure if he's 'one of us.' To do this, he will have to be more aggressive than your average white-bread candidate with a boring white-bread name like John McCain. Better still, enlisting Obama's online groundtroops in the effort seems in keeping with the grassroots, participatory nature of his campaign."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The question facing the campaign has been around for quite a while: ignore the trashy rumors (and possibly allow them to fester unchallenged) or debunk them (and possibly bring added attention to the lies, inadvertently lending them credence). As Time's Karen Tumulty explained today, Obama is going with the latter with a new site called, 'Fight the Smears.' [...] It may be risky, but all things being equal, I think it's the right way to go."

OBAMA II: Nice Try, Barack

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama campaign's "Fight The Smears" website:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "Very clever tactic by the Obama campaign -- launching a Web site called 'Fight the Smears', pushing the idea that any negative information about Obama is a vicious right-wing lie. [...] Getting out front with the idea that Obama will be the victim of 'smears' is a way of preparing supporters to dismiss as invalid any criticism of Obama's record or of his associations with Bill Ayers, Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright, Tony Rezko, etc."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The problem with Obama's site is the issues it doesn't address. Thus, Obama's debunking of the 'whitey' tape appears under the heading, 'The truth about Michelle [Obama].' But what about the other questions that have been raised about Michelle Obama, such as her claim to have been proud of her country for the first time when her husband ran for President? The 'truth about Michelle' is very much in doubt. [...] The site proclaims that 'Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.' I've seen what appears to be credible evidence that Obama was raised as a Muslim as a boy, during the time he lived in Indonesia. But that is of little importance. What concerns me, and millions of others, is not the idea that Obama could be a Muslim -- he clearly is not -- but rather the fact that the religion to which he was drawn as a young man, and in which he participated for twenty years, is not Christian at all. Rather, Rev. Wright preached hatred, paranoia and racism, the opposite of Christianity, and for twenty years, Obama treated Wright as a spiritual mentor. This is, obviously, a legitimate concern which Obama's 'smear' site does not address."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Dear writers and editors of the Obama's FightTheSmears site: I have a hot tip for you on another person describing Obama as having a 'Muslim background': Malik Obama, the candidate's half-brother, in a recent interview cited in the Jerusalem Post. Please track down this nefarious malefactor and ensure his statements are corrected."

Other conservative bloggers are criticizing the "Fight The Smears" website for quoting GOP operative Roger Stone as saying that he has "credible evidence that some indelible record exists" of Michelle Obama making inflammatory statements. In reality, Stone didn't say that he had "credible evidence"; rather, he said that he thought the rumors were "credible": "Well, there's a buzz, which I believe now to be credible, that some indelible record exists of public remarks that Michelle Obama allegedly made."

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "To respond to this smear, the Obama campaign has created a smear of its own. They are falsely accusing Roger Stone of claiming to possess the Whitey tape. Stone never said that. If the Obama campaign is going to combat smears by smears of its own, we might need to do an anti-anti-smear site."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Again, this is an example of Obama blowing it. The idea of a rapid response website that sets the record straight is a very, very good idea. But Obama got greedy. It wasn't enough to say the 'whitey' rumor was bogus. He had to pretend it was our idea. And so his website is just the latest example of how Obama is playing politics. It's the game. They smear us, we smear them. That's politics as usual."

OBAMA III: The Swiftboating Begins?

The netroots are furious that the National Press Club is hosting a Minnesota man named Larry Sinclair who has been making wild allegations that Obama had sex and used cocaine with him in 1999.

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "The Obama is a Muslim smear and the stupid whitey video rumors aren't the last nasty dishonest rant to test our press corps's willingness to publish anything. A few months ago I noticed claims being circulated by a fellow named Larry Sinclair making allegations that Obama had sex and used drugs with him in 1999. Whitehouse.com offered $100,000 if Sinclair could pass a polygraph test; Sinclair took the test, and failed. Now Sinclair has gotten himself booked at the National Press Club, which is a venue that books press events, as well as weddings and bar mitzvahs, so as to have a sheen of legitimacy. His stuff has been circulated on youtube and on various websites, but with clear debunkings of his claims and his credibility. Hopefully journalists will continue to ignore this person (though there has been a little coverage), and whoever is fronting him will stop and eventually he can get the medical help he needs."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Heckuva Job, Pressy. National Press Club goes where the National Enquirer won't."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Ohforchrissakesyouhavetobeshittingme. [...] I really don't know what to say. If the media is now going to talk to every crackpot out there, there used to be a lady who walks up and down High Street here in Morgantown with a bottle of bleach talking to herself. Maybe she can speak next month."
• Benen: "Sinclair can make whatever wild accusations he wants, but it's worth remembering that his story doesn't stand up well to scrutiny (during an alleged rendezvous with Obama in Illinois, Sinclair was actually booked in Colorado), and as witnesses go, Sinclair is less than unimpeachable (he apparently has a lengthy criminal record). It's curious, though, that Sinclair will get the National Press Club as a platform -- one needs a Press Club sponsor to host an event, raising questions about who, exactly, helped get Sinclair a room. For that matter, Sinclair now has a lawyer -- Montgomery Sibley, who recently defended the 'DC Madam' Deborah Jean Palfrey -- and it's curious how Sinclair can afford such a pricey attorney. In other words, the steady stream of smears have been non-stop, but they're not about to go away anytime soon."

OBAMA IV: Apparently Anyone Can Speak At The National Press Club...

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher has launched a petition "ask[ing] the National Press Club to check the facts before giving Larry Sinclair a bully pulpit": "Larry Sinclair is one of the most outrageous anti-Obama smear merchants. So why is the National Press Club hosting him this coming Wednesday? Apparently Jeff Gannon wasn't available. [...] Larry Sinclair has accused Obama of murdering his pastor. I understand the Press Club regularly rents out their facility to people, but it wouldn't take much effort for them to check his story out and conclude it's demonstrably false. Sinclair also indicates they're sending out a press release on his behalf. Every facility exercises judgment in this stuff. Would they do it for the Klan? More than anything else, it was the Swift Boaters being treated like they were legitimate by traditional media that allowed them to wreak such havoc on Kerry's 2004 campaign. Reverend Wright's appearance at the Press Club also dominated the headlines for a month. They should be careful about letting their credibility be used to legitimize Larry Sinclair, no matter how marginally. Sign the petition telling the Press Club not to play host to Larry Sinclair."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Remember this ridiculous Obama smear? Seems fringe enough, right? Well, the National Press Club appears eager to give him a bigger platform. [...] Sign a petition at FDL urging the National Press Club to reconsider its baffling decision to give this thoroughly discredited guy a platform. [...] Here is Larry Sinclair's mugshot for his arrest for theft and forgery -- one of several he's racked up in his life."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Too often, news organizations and political institutions play pass-the-buck with political smears, unaware that giving people like Sinclair a platform help legitimize his falsehoods. Head over and sign the petition and call (politely) to ask the Press Club not to host Sinclair."

OBAMA V: The Best Defense Is A Good Offense

While most liberal bloggers are currently preoccupied with defending Obama against the Larry Sinclair smear, a few are arguing that attacking McCain is equally critical.

Open Left commentator leshrac55 analyzes George W. Bush and Kerry's polling averages from the '04 election:

"What's clear from that graph is that Kerry received very little bounce from his 'Don't attack Bush' convention (July 26-29) and that Bush received a massive bounce from his 'Let's only bash Kerry' convention (Aug 30-Sept 2) that couldn't quite be overcome in time for November. Who knows, maybe if Kerry had had a good convention, Bush's massive bounce would've been overcome in the end. The lesson? BASH THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE AT YOUR CONVENTION. Let us hope that the Democrats don't fall for this again."

Open Left's Chris Bowers agrees:

"Let's hope that [the Obama campaign's] top-down messaging includes a willingness to really attack McCain during the Democratic convention (and, of course, before and after the convention as well). Kerry's focus on positive messaging back in 2004 was one of the reasons he was left vulnerable to the Republican Noise Machine. While the [Obama] campaign launched a 'fight the smears' operation yesterday, pushing back isn't enough. As the old saying does, one of the best defenses is a good offense. If Obama can put McCain even more on the defensive than he already is, then he has the opportunity to build a truly substantial lead over the summer."

MCCAIN: Lookin' Out For The Richest Among Us

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the Tax Policy Center's new report comparing Obama's and McCain's tax plans. The authors of the report write:

"The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise."

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Bottom line: If you're really rich and think that George Bush's tax cuts for the rich didn't go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man."
• Mark Kleiman: "McCain's tax plan helps the top quintile of the income distribution, and really helps the top one percent and tenth of a percent. Obama's plan is better for the the other 80% of the population. [...] Just remember this when you hear about 'inexperience' and voting 'present' and 'bitter' and Rev. Wright and William Ayers and Rezko and Michelle Obama and 'Muslim' and 'Hamas' and all the other crap the right wing is going to throw at Barack Obama: for them, this election is about whether the federal government keeps waging class warfare on behalf of the prosperous, the wealthy, and the filthy rich against the bottom four-fifths of the country. They're for it. Obama is against it."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy compares the cost of each tax plan: "How much, or (in Obama's case) whether, each candidate's tax plans would add to the deficit depends on what you take your baseline to be, and in particular, on whether you assume (a) that Bush's tax cuts are made permanent, and (b) that the Alternative Minimum Tax gets a permanent fix. [...But] however you score it, McCain's is more expensive by at least a trillion dollars over ten years."

MCCAIN II: How About A Surge Of Drilling?

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize McCain for opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (which he compared to drilling in the Grand Canyon):

• Glenn Reynolds: "If [McCain] actually visits ANWR, he'll see that it's hardly comparable to the Grand Canyon."
• Michelle Malkin: "John McCain is stubbornly and foolishly sticking to his No ANWR drilling talking points (video here in case you missed it). McCain needs to do what he keeps pressing Barack Obama to do on Iraq (and rightly so): Get on the ground and talk to the people who know the terrain best. The calls for McCain to visit ANWR are mounting. [...] What are they waiting for?"
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "The analogy between ANWR and the Grand Canyon is spurious on its face. [...] Before the age of environmental Romanticism had captured elite opinion in this country, such analogies didn't pass the laugh test. Both the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards enthusiastically supported drilling in ANWR in the late 1980s. The Post noted that the area 'is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life...' To say such things today is to pollute unforgivably the inane music of groupthink. And that's something even the 'maverick' McCain will not do."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Advice For Congressional Candidates

Edward Winkleman (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

"Back when I lived in Washington DC, the Congressional candidate whose campaign I worked on explained that in politics you meet so many people you never say 'Nice to meet you' when working a crowd. Odds are you'll say that to someone you had previously met, but don't recognize, and they'll feel insulted. Instead, you say 'Nice to see you,' because that covers both the folks you're meeting for the first time and those you've met before."

LEST WE FORGET: SkyMall Scores Again

Cracked's Ross Wolinsky compiles a list of "The 5 Most Ridiculous SkyMall Products Money Can Buy." The #2 product on his list is a "Signed Soup Nazi Photo":

WHAT IT DOES: Is 'signed by Larry Thomas, the actor who played the infamous character in a 1995 episode of Seinfeld'
WHAT IT COSTS: $199.95
WHY YOU NEED IT: You have an 'offbeat' sense of humor, and there is no better way of showing it off than by purchasing a signed picture of Larry Thomas (aka 'The Soup Nazi') to hang in your office. Put it in a visible place and scream to the world, 'I am familiar with a semi-obscure character from one of the most-viewed sitcoms in the history of television!' Eventually, someone with a similar knowledge of basic pop culture trivia will see it on your wall and scream back 'NO SOUP FOR YOU!' Then you'll be like, 'Yup -- Seinfeld,' and they'll be like, 'I love that show!' This will make you more popular around your office, which will all but guarantee that big promotion you've been gunning for. Before long you'll be running the place, and people will come into your office and be like 'No soup for you...right, sir?' and you'll be like, 'You think I have time to sit around quoting Seinfeld with you, Bill? You're fired -- get the fuck out of my office.' All for a measly $199.95.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 02:03 PM

June 12, 2008

6/12: McCain Steps In It

Liberal bloggers joined prominent Dems in launching a full-throated attack on John McCain after he told NBC's Matt Lauer that it's "not too important" to define when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Liberal bloggers are comparing this remark to McCain's "100 years" statement, both of which they view as evidence that McCain is fundamentally out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to Iraq. The netroots are arguing that McCain's vision of a peaceful, long-term U.S. presence in Iraq is a fantasy, especially when one considers that Iraqi politicians are opposed to having U.S. military bases in their country indefinitely. Matthew Yglesias writes: "It's just really, really, really hard to station your troops where they're not wanted."

Many pundits predict that the economy will be the biggest issue in this year's presidential election, but the netroots are clearly itching for a debate about Iraq. And they may get what they want, since it appears that foreign policy -- not the economy -- is what animates both McCain and Barack Obama.

MCCAIN: Advocating Endless War?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain for telling NBC's Lauer that it's "not too important" to define when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq:

Lauer: "If [the surge is] working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
McCain: "No, but that's not too important. What's important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine."

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain's remarks and comparing them to his "100 years" comments:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "There have been 10 American soldiers killed in Iraq during the first 10 days of this month, 189 killed this year, and 4,094 killed over the past five years, but bringing the troops home 'isn't too important' because we've got troops stationed in Germany and South Korea and no one is killing them? This is what John McCain is 'fine' with for another 100 years."
• Mark Kleiman: "For lots of the folks in Iraq -- the Guardsmen and reservists who didn't expect to be deployed to a war zone when they signed up -- service in Iraq is a substantial hardship, even if no one gets hit. From them and their families, when they get to come home and resume their normal lives is, indeed, 'that important.'"
• dday: "He's saying that leaving Iraq is not the priority, that as long as we reduce casualties the troops can remain there indefinitely. But he's also said that he would add as many troops as necessary to reduce those casualties. That's a prescription for endless war."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "This is not some gaffe or Macaca moment. It's quite clear that McSame, like Bush, wants to occupy Iraq forever. And Americans will have a clear choice in November between indefinite occupation and getting out as quickly as possible."
• The Atlantic's Yglesias: "This is stunning stuff. Having convinced a swathe of the press that it was unfair of Democrats to accurately quote McCain as saying he had no problem with American troops being in Iraq for 100 years, he's now back saying it's 'not too important' whether or not our troops ever leave Iraq. [...] Given Iraqi sentiment about this topic, McCain's vision of a long-time but utterly peaceful presence since extremely difficult to realize. It's just really, really, really hard to station your troops where they're not wanted."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "100 years redux? Actually, yes, because McCain said exactly the same thing he said the last time he got in hot water over this: he's OK with keeping troops in Iraq forever as long as it becomes as peaceful as garrison duty in Okinawa or Germany. Unfortunately, in typical McCain style, that's where he stops. He never explains how Iraq is going to be fully pacified when a large and growing majority of its residents are outraged at the idea of a long-term U.S. presence. He just doesn't get the Catch-22: he wants Iraq to become Okinawa Jr., but as long as we're there the violence is never going to stop and Iraq will stay Iraq. Casualties will never be reduced to zero."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "If there's a known path from our current state in Iraq to peace without US casualties, I haven't heard it. And once you accept that a Japan or Korea-like presence is actually impossible in Iraq, the total disconnect McCain tries to create between how long we stay and how many casualties we suffer becomes illogical."
• Oliver Willis: "You know, I'm wondering if maybe the GOP would have been better off nominating Mitt Romney."

MCCAIN II: What's So Great About Permanent Bases?

Liberal bloggers believe that the U.S. has no reason to maintain permanent bases in Iraq:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If McCain is going to use this analogy, he owes us some explanation of how, exactly, Iraq is going to become the sort of place in which we can deploy our troops as safely as we do in Japan or Germany, and how long he thinks this will take. [And] why on earth are we supposed to want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years? What is the benefit that justifies the costs to our troops and their families, our armed forces, our other foreign policy interests, and our treasury?"
• Yglesias: "Amidst his analogies to South Korea and Germany, McCain seems to be missing the part where he explains why making permanent bases our key war aim is a good idea. We maintained our garrison in West Germany because of the Warsaw Pact across the border and you can't understand why our troops are in South Korea without thinking about North Korea. But what are they going to be doing in Iraq? Fighting Iran? That seems like a recipe for ensuring that Iraq never becomes peaceful and stable, since if our goal in Iraq is to create a platform for anti-Iranian activities then the Iranians would seem to have no choice but to stir up as much trouble as possible."
• Drum: "Even if casualties did drop to zero, would we really want a long-term neocolonial presence in Iraq anyway? Why? To protect the oil? That was pumping just fine before we were there. To fight al-Qaeda? They're in Pakistan. To ensure a presence in the area? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. How the hell many do we need?"
• BooMan: "Whether you're a progressive, a paleoconservative, or a libertarian, there is so much wrong with McCain's worldview that it's hard to know where to begin. For those of us that have long questioned America's forward-leaning foreign policy of maintaining military bases in nearly 200 foreign countries, McCain's lazy acceptance of century-long foreign occupations is discordant, to say the least."

MCCAIN III: That's Not Context We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers aren't buying the McCain camp's explanation of the AZ senator's remarks. Here is part of the McCain camp's statement:

"...John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth."

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The thing is, though, that McCain didn't merely say that when the troops come home is 'not as important' as other factors, as the statement says. Rather, he said that it was 'not too important' when they come home. This is precisely what Dems are criticizing today, and it's unclear to me why the larger context changes this basic fact about what he said. Indeed, McCain's belief that the timing of withdrawal is not too important is really the centerpiece of the argument between the GOP and Dems, who argue that withdrawing without delay is extremely important -- both to the troops themselves, and because of our overstretched military."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they're not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That's not a crazy position. That's the position of the current administration. [...] The problem isn't that McCain's position is incomprehensible. It's just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they'd like to do both -- reduce casualties and leave too. The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he's running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he'd said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn't that different from McCain's actual policy, which is that he doesn't think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I realize why these guys are spinning like tops. Most Americans -- especially the troops and their families -- don't want to a hear a prospective candidate say that it's 'not too important' when the troops come home from Iraq. But the problem is, and the reason the campaign can't come up with a coherent response, is that McCain actually believes what he said."

MCCAIN III: Cheney? Hell Yeah!

As McCain attempts to distance himself from the Bush Administration, liberal bloggers are pointing out that McCain praised Vice President Dick Cheney in 2006, as The Politico's Jonathan Martin reports:

"In an interview [McCain] gave to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes in 2006 for Hayes' biography, 'Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President,' McCain said: 'I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States.'

Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he'd consider Cheney for an administration post.

Asked whether he'd be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: 'I don't know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.'"

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Cheney's Third Term? 'Hell, yeah.' [There]'s a thought that's enough to chill the blood."
• TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "Holy smokes: Why is Barack Obama under-selling the notion of 'Bush's third term' when he rightly can and should be selling it as a third 'Bush-Cheney term'?!"
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "Enthusiastically proclaiming you would want someone as unpopular as Dick Cheney serving in your administration? How mavericky! [...] You almost have to feel bad for McCain and the fine line he has to tread. On the one hand he has to distance himself from the miserable failure that is the Bush years; on the other hand he has to reassure the dead-enders (aka the GOP base) that he really does consider Bush/Cheney a fantastic success. It's no wonder why, then, that McCain will find himself praising the Bushies one minute, and running away as quickly as possible the other. At least it will make for some fun campaign moments."
• Yglesias: "Never fear, though, John McCain is in no sense offering a third Bush term. [...] McCain's just a guy who wants to continue most of Bush's policies and admires Bush's key henchmen and wants to keep them serving in government office. But that doesn't mean he represents more of the same. It's just a different kind of change -- hell yeah!"

Meanwhile, Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes that McCain emphasized his similarities with Bush during a 2005 interview with NBC's Tim Russert:

"I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

Greenwald: "That pretty much speaks for itself, and I hope the Obama campaign uses it. Last week, McCain essentially called Obama a liar for suggesting that McCain's election would bring about George Bush's third term, but three years ago, McCain himself proudly declared that 'on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, [he's] been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.' The 2005 McCain was right."

MCCAIN IV: It's A Series Of Tubes

Several liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent video in which McCain, after being asked whether he was a Mac person or a PC person, replied: "Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

• Mother Jones' Jonathan Stein: "Do we want a commander-in-chief who can't use a computer without assistance?"
• Atrios: "I think in 2008 computer use and understanding of the internet should be part of the basic skill set we expect from people in positions of prominent public leadership. It's pretty much impossible to have any kind of understanding of how people in the modern world go about their lives and work without that. [...] I don't mean it's important for someone running for president to spend his/her days on Facebook or becoming immersed in all of the various internet subcultures. But how can you have any genuine sense of contemporary life unless you at least have some clue?"
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "There are those who chafe a bit when we take shots at McCain's age, but there's always a deeper point lurking behind many of those shots (cheap or not) -- leading the world's sole superpower in this digital era should require basic understanding of those things which drive the modern culture and economy. [...] How can a candidate who admits he is stuck in the 20th century lead a country in the 21st, when he lacks even the most basic understanding of how this brave new century operates? He doesn't know how people interact and communicate. He doesn't know have the faintest idea of how they work. And this from the guy who once chaired the commerce committee! Is it any wonder that McCain has been completely unable to adapt to the rigors of a 21st century campaign, in which YouTube and blogs can instantaneously expose every single one of his myriad flip flops and capture every one of his ghastly grins?"

MCCAIN V: Too Green For The GOP?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing McCain's views on energy and the environment:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "It's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to get traction on the energy issue without help at the top of the ticket. Here, the problem is that John McCain long ago signed on to the anthropogenic global warming fallacy. As a result, his energy policies can scarcely be distinguished from those of the Democrats. [...] The smartest thing John McCain could do right now is take two weeks off from the campaign trail to study the scientific data on the earth's climate. He could familiarize himself with the latest scientific work, which has decisively refuted the global warming alarmists. He could meet with distinguished scientists on all sides of the issue. After two weeks, he could announce that his study of the issue has convinced him that the effect of CO2 on the earth's climate has been grossly exaggerated, and as a result, he is tweaking his own energy policy in the direction of greater support for domestic oil and gas production."
• NRO's Larry Kudlow: "When asked about gas prices at the pump, and whether they could go any lower, Sen. McCain said he didn't think so because 'You've got a finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it.' This is exactly wrong. There is no finite supply, or if there is we are 100 years away from it. [...] Democrats are out there pushing cap-and-trade, which would jack up gasoline and oil energy prices, damage the economy, and create a massive central-planning exercise. The Democratic Congress has done nothing to alleviate the oil shortage. They're captured by the greenies. They should be blamed. This is a real turnaround issue for the Republicans and Mr. McCain. But McCain's not going there."

Conservative bloggers are particularly upset that McCain compared drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with drilling in the Grand Canyon:

"[McCain] said that he opposed drilling in ANWR for the same reason that he 'would not drill in the Grand Canyon...I believe this area should be kept pristine.' (Proposed oil and gas exploration in ANWR would only affect 2,000 of its 19 million acres, or 0.01 percent.)"

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "McCain's chief virtue is also his vice: Economic and political circumstances may change, but gosh darn it, he's sticking to his guns come what may. You'd better come up with one honey of a VP pick, Maverick. Exit question: How high do gas prices have to get before that precious 0.01 percent starts to look somewhat less pristine? Do we need to see actual gas lines?"
• Michelle Malkin: "McCain. Ugh."

OBAMA: And Another One Bites The Dust

Conservative bloggers mocked Obama after Jim Johnson, who had been helping to lead Obama's VP search committee, "stepped down Wednesday as Republican criticism of his home mortgage deals became a distraction for a candidate who eschews Washington insider influence":

• RedState's Ben Domenech: "I'm beginning to like Barack Obama. He's so wonderfully predictable. Each time there's a blowup -- a friend of his who highlights the hypocrisy of his HopeChange message, a connection to the corruption of Chicago politics, an adviser or spiritual mentor saying offensively wacky things -- Obama responds with the same round of obfuscations: (1.) Obama denies there is a problem. (2.) Obama insists he was misunderstood. (3.) Obama ignores the problem. (4.) Obama caves."
• see-dubya: "Question -- so if James Johnson didn't really 'work' for Obama, can he resign from a job he never had?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "It is becoming easier to understand how Obama got swept into the orbit of Tony Rezko: he seems to lack basic common sense about the appearance of ethical improprieties and possesses the arrogance to believe no one will question his motives. It's a deadly combination."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This is a perfect example of what happens when you have to make a transition from lofty rhetoric to actually leading. The first important decision Obama will make is choosing a vice president, and yet the man tasked with helping him conduct that search is forced to resign. Maybe from now on Obama should hire vetters to vet the vetters? What an utter debacle."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Obama seems to have an odd and rather unendearing personality tic whereby he considers his every instinct to be perfect. If he had pondered the matter a little more closely, he probably would have realized that Johnson wasn't the right guy for the job. I guess the whole Hope/Change gestalt doesn't allow for reflection."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Once again, we see that Obama's first instinct when encountering a skeptical questioner is to challenge the questioner; 'no, you're wrong.' Twenty-four hours ago, this was 'a game' and Johnson didn't work for Obama. Once again, as with [Jeremiah] Wright, and the flag pin, and Trinity United, etc., the initial answer is now inoperative."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Being both arrogant and careless doesn't bode well for someone who will have to run a nation. It's already led to a series of gaffes and missteps on the campaign trail, such as his two-step on Iran, his two-step on Jerusalem, his two-step on the surge, and more. Obama needed a few years more to break down the arrogance and start learning how to manage himself, let alone a campaign and then a nation."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama has blown his first week as the Democratic nominee defending a DC insider who took the special deals from the deep pockets which Obama has been blasting his opponents for for months. When will Marc Rich's patron saint Eric Holder step down from his job on the same committee?"

OBAMA II: Good Call, Barack

Some liberal bloggers are glad that Johnson resigned:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I'm glad the Obama campaign realized this is not a battle worth waging. The fact is, Obama is likely to be held to a higher standard than McCain is on various measures over the coming months because Obama has staked his campaign largely on judgment and a new kind of politics. Who Obama surrounds himself with, whether in an official paid capacity or not, matters and it's good that they've learned that lesson now rather than later."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Good move by the Obama camp. [...] Next time, let's be careful BEFORE we name folks like Johnson, who clearly epitomized everything Obama was said to be running against. Politics is phony theatre, but this was a bit too much."

Balloon Juice's John Cole thinks this is a non-issue: "If prior to reading this post, you had no clue who Jim Johnson was, don't worry, you are not alone. In fact, if you polled the country, about half of them would ask if you were talking about the former Cowboys coach, the other half would have no clue. Which is to say this is a story about nothing. [...] The only thing that matters is who the VP choice will be, not who vetted the choice. Quick: Who vetted John Edwards? Al Gore? No fair using Google. The only reason some people remember who vetted Dick Cheney is because it was...Dick Cheney. How is that working out for the country?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He's A Liberal, But He's A Thoughtful Liberal

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat analyzes Obama's political style:

"As evidence that on judicial appointments, his candidate isn't 'quite the knee-jerk liberal base-pleaser some want us to believe,' Andrew [Sullivan] marshals this Daily Kos guest post from 2005, in which Obama defends [WI Sen.] Russell Feingold's and [VT Sen.] Pat Leahy's votes to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. And Andrew's right, in a sense: The post is in many respects a brave and thoughtful rebuke to the Kossack, scorched-earth style of politics, and an eloquent defense of the tradition that gives Presidents the benefit of the doubt when they appoint obviously-qualified nominees to the high court.

The only thing undercutting all this bravery is the fact that Obama himself voted against John Roberts, because Obama himself actually agreed with the the liberal base that 'too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give...Roberts the benefit of the doubt,' all those high-minded thoughts notwithstanding. But he wanted the Kossacks -- and us -- to know that his decision wasn't a knee-jerk one, that it was made in a careful, contemplative fashion, and that he understands (as he always does) why someone else might have come to a different conclusion.

The results are the same, but the style is so much more thoughtful."

LEST WE FORGET: Dreams Deferred

Radar's Scott Jacobson, Todd Levin, Jason Roeder, Mike Sacks, and Ted Travelstead compile a list of "100 Reasons You Can't Sleep." Here are some of the highlights:

• Can't stop worrying about Britney
• That guard keeps shining his goddamn flashlight in your eyes
• Person in next hostel bunk won't stop crying out in Afrikaans
• Staying up one more hour to see how Ron Popeil will blow your mind this time
• Can't remember where you put that baby
• Haven't changed your Facebook status in almost three hours
• Should never have ordered Ambien from Craigslist
• Impatiently awaiting news of Ace of Base reunion
• Suddenly realized you chose the path most traveled

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:59 PM

June 11, 2008

6/11: The Vetter Who Needed Vetting

Conservative bloggers continue to blast Barack Obama for tapping Jim Johnson to lead his VP search committee when Johnson reportedly received preferential loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of hypocrisy because he criticized Countrywide by name while campaigning for the Dem nod. Furthermore, the GOP criticism of Obama is being echoed by a number of prominent journalists, which gives the story added force. This mini-controversy has clearly become a headache for Obama, and his widely-mocked response to the Johnson flap did little to help matters.

OBAMA: This Is A New Kind Of Politics?

Conservative bloggers continue to accuse Obama of hypocrisy for tapping Jim Johnson to lead his VP search committee when Johnson reportedly received preferential loans from Countrywide Financial Corp.:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Barack Obama has selected two men to team with Caroline Kennedy to conduct his Vice Presidential search. One, Eric Holder, was instrumental in securing Marc Rich's pardon from Bill Clinton on the last day of the Clinton Administration. The other, James Johnson, received a series of sweetheart loans from Countrywide, including a large loan at an interest rate below 4% which looks like a gift. [...] Obama has been blasting Countryside and its CEO for months. He's been promising a sharp break with the Beltway practices of the past. So in his first week of nominee he finds himself defending old guard D.C. players who represent the restoration of the Clintons without the Clintons. Fine. But spare us the sanctimonious prattle about change."
• Michelle Malkin: "If you're going to promise 'new politics,' it would probably be wise to eschew the same old Beltway cronies and insiders who have served past presidential nominees of yore. And if you're going to attack political opponents for playing 'textbook Washington games,' it would probably be best not to play them yourself. If you do, you'll end up tongue-tied in front of the cameras, hung by your own holier-than-thou rhetoric, and faced once again with the decision to throw another bad choice under the bus."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It's not just the fact that Johnson works for any presidential campaign; it's the utter hypocrisy of a self-appointed ethics scold demanding one standard for his opponents and demanding a much different standard for himself. By any standard, that's bad news, and it portends much more bad news in an Obama administration."

OBAMA II: Can You Explain That Again, Senator?

Conservative are also mocking Obama's response to the Johnson controversy:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I haven't yet blogged about the controversy over Obama VP search team member Jim Johnson's ties to mortgage companies Countrywide Financial and Fannie Mae, just because I got annoyed by conservatives echoing liberal talking points on greedy corporate CEOs and mortgage lenders, even if it was a demonstration of Obama's hypocrisy. But watching Obama stammer his way through a press conference today when he was asked about the Johnson matter...I was reminded of how poorly the typically eloquent Obama holds up to actual scrutiny."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It is rather striking that the honest-to-God Obama defense on this, when finally asked a pretty tough question from a reporter is, 'these aren't folks who are working for me.' Let me get this straight: The team searching for a running mate for Barack Obama doesn't work for Barack Obama. Uh...okay. Who, pray tell, do they work for?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "This would almost be painful to watch. [...] Almost. Fortunately, I'm laughing too hard at the sight of watching someone who is supposed to be the second incarnation of Demosthenes fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you."

OBAMA III: Wasn't He Supposed To Be A Map-Changer?

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) called Obama "the most liberal senator" in Congress and declined to endorse him:

• Klein: "It's quite telling that for all of the talk earlier this year of Obama's ability to redraw the map, a red state Democrat already feels the need to distance himself from Obama."
• see-dubya: "Dan Boren from Oklahoma's second district -- 'Little Dixie' -- seems more than a bit agnostic about the Obamessiah, whom he dubs the 'most liberal Senator'. Get that? Most liberal. More liberal than John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer. The. Most. Liberal. I don't really get the 'too liberal to endorse, but not too liberal to vote for' distinction, but there you go. He's a superdelegate, so he'll vote for Obama at the convention, too. Why wouldn't he endorse Obama? Probably because he's running for re-election in gun-totin' Reagan Democrat central. He's also been to Iraq since Obama has."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan Boren's announcement that he won't be endorsing Barack Obama...is a moment of clarity. For much of the campaign, people have been waiting to see how Barack Obama would pivot away from pandering to the Democratic primary electorate to a general election stance. Waiting for him to 'triangulate' some distance from his base, waiting for a 'Sister Souljah moment' [...] By now, it is clear: unlike Clinton or John McCain, when Obama is involved in triangulation, it will be his own party comrades triangulating away from him. [...] There will be no Sister Souljah moment by Obama because he is Sister Souljah, the very sort of peace-at-any-price, you-can-never-have-enough-tax-hikes, abortion-in-and-out-of-the-womb zealot that other Democrats need to run away from. Boren's not the first, and he won't be the last one.
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Obama: too liberal even for Democrats."

OBAMA IV: Joe Digs In

Following Obama's animated discussion with McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor last week, Newsweek's Mark Hosenball, Jake Sherman and Richard Wolffe reported:

"...According to a[n Obama] campaign aide who asked for anonymity when talking about private discussions, Obama told Lieberman he was surprised by Lieberman's personal attacks and his half-hearted denials of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. (The aide says Lieberman was 'strangely muted' during the exchange; a Lieberman spokesman says the chat was 'private and friendly.')"

Lieberman's spokesperson reacted to the Newsweek report by telling National Review's Mark Hemingway that "the anonymous Obama campaign staffer's characterization of the private conversation was entirely false and fabricated." Furthermore, an anonymous Lieberman aide told Time's Mark Halperin that "if the Obama campaign thinks they are going to intimidate Joe Lieberman with these sleazy tactics then they are sorely mistaken."

Liberal bloggers are slamming Lieberman and declaring that his days as a Democrat are numbered:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Whining like that can only come from Marshall Wittman. And I love it. Anything that pushes Lieberman deeper into McCain's loving embrace will only make it easier for us to convince the Dem caucus to strip him off his Democratic committee assignments. Let's see if the GOP makes him the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. It's not as if he's done his job this Congress."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Now, it's not clear to me what they're calling 'sleazy tactics' -- the initial talking-to or the allegedly false characterization of the conversation. [...] What does seem clear to me is that Lieberman's days in the Democratic caucus, or more specifically, his days with a committee chairmanship courtesy of the Democratic caucus are numbered in months. My assumption is that after the November election, regardless of the outcome of the presidential campaign, Joe will be stripped of his chairmanship...Whether he'll actually be expelled from the caucus I don't know and probably doesn't really matter. Once he's stripped of the benefits he gains from it, presumably he'll leave himself and become an actual non-caucusing independent or, more likely, start caucusing with the Republicans. What that tells me is that Lieberman has no incentive not to make the maximum amount of trouble over the next five months both for his senate colleagues and for Sen. Obama."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Lieberman might as well kiss his committee gavel goodbye, and once that happens, he'll have no incentive to caucus with the party. Lieberman probably realizes this, which will make him an unrestrained Republican attack-dog throughout the campaign cycle."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Unless I am mistaken, committee chairmanships in the 111th Congress have to be approved not only by the leadership, but also by a majority of the Democratic Senate caucus. As such, whether or not Lieberman maintains his committee chair next year will be a key test of what sort of Senate majority we will have. If Lieberman is still a committee chair in the 111th, don't expect a fighting, progressive Senate. However, if he loses his chairmanship, then we might really have something next year."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher argues that Lieberman has helped "fuel the irrational, racist fears that Obama is a terrorist": "How about the time he echoed the 'Hamas supports Obama' smear on Fox News? And why didn't he sign the letter with other Jewish Senators condemning Muslim smears in January? Joe knows what he's there for. To fuel the irrational, racist fears that Obama is a terrorist. The one thing you can say -- if Joe's bristling about 'sleazy tactics,' he knows from whence he speaks."

Conservative blogger Paul Mirengoff thinks Obama is foolish to "pick a personal fight" with Lieberman: "Joe Lieberman's credibility with key portions of the Jewish community and with what's left of the 'Scoop Jackson' wing of the Democratic party is rock solid, founded as it is on more than 20 years of advocacy. Barack Obama's credibility with this community has yet to be established. Picking a personal fight with Lieberman is not the way to establish it."

OBAMA V: Stabbed In The Back

TPM's Greg Sargent: "Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain's lead attack dog against Barack Obama -- even going so far as to suggest that Obama's judgment could pose a danger to our safety -- there's some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about. A top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest. [...] It's well known that Obama's 2006 endorsement was important. But it's not widely understood just how urgently the Lieberman people begged for Obama's help at a critical moment in Lieberman's career -- and in that light, just how much of a back-stabbing Lieberman's attacks on Obama now represent."

Liberal bloggers are disgusted by Lieberman's conduct:

• Atrios: "This is how the last honest man in Washington repays those who help him."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Senator Joe Lieberman has cultivated this image of being a 'nice guy.' And a lot of Americans fell for it. But he's not a nice guy at all. He's kind of a backstabber. [...] He's a bitter old Washington politician who begged a friend for help, got it, then turned around two years later and stabbed that friend in the back. Joe Lieberman isn't crossing party lines to show how he puts principle above party. He's crossing party lines because today it's the move that pays him the most benefit. That doesn't make him principled, it makes him a whore."

Moulitsas describes Obama's '06 endorsement of Lieberman and his refusal to campaign for Lamont "[his] worst decision the past two years": "Obama gave Lieberman his priceless endorsement, undercutting Ned Lamont. Then, in the general election, rather than get behind Lamont as the Democratic nominee, he undercut him by refusing anything more than a pitiful email to a pitiful 200+ recipients. In other words, Obama ran interference for Lieberman. Now, Obama reaps what he sowed, with Joe Lieberman transformed into one of John McCain's top attack dogs. Supporting Joe Lieberman and undermining Ned Lamont was likely Obama's worst decision the past two years. And while a heaping spoonfull of 'I told you so' is in order, I'd be satisfied with a full-fledged ouster of Lieberman from the Democratic caucus. Senate Democrats (and Barack Obama) cannot allow a betrayal of this magnitude remain unpunished."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: There's A Girl That's Been On My Mind...All The Time...Se-Sebelius

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein examines KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius: "Being a successful Democrat in a Republican state, showing an ability to reach blue-collar voters, and demonstrating a tenacity to challenge the [George W.] Bush administration, has vaulted Sebelius into any honest discussion of Obama's veepstakes. Sharing a good relationship with the Illinois Democrat and endorsing him fairly early in the primary cycle didn't hurt either. But Sebelius also has blind spots on her political resume that even her most ardent supporters acknowledge. The most superficial is her State of the Union response, a speech that detractors say is evidence that she can't handle the national stage, but, her office claims, was merely a product of divergent expectations. [...] A far more substantive concern with Sebelius could be that she doesn't provide what Obama truly needs. As governor, she has had limited direct national security experience. And a recent Survey USA poll showed that, even with her as vice president, Obama still wouldn't carry Kansas (and its six electoral college votes) in the general election."

• Ezra Klein: "Sebelius's ability to translate progressivism into a governing philosophy that wins in Kansas seems like a tremendous achievement, but there's no doubt that her lackluster response to Bush's State of the Union dimmed her star. Even so, what shines through in Stein's profile is that Sebelius has been a damn good governor, and it's been, in large part, that very competence that's allowed her to flip the state's moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party and win election after election. That should count for something."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Sebelius...continues to seem like a totally plausible choice."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: Biden's Got Game

Ezra Klein makes the case for Joe Biden: "Biden is, arguably, the most effective voice Democrats have on foreign policy. And here's why: Joe Biden is an incredibly arrogant jerk. And that's exactly what Democrats need. [...] Is Bident perfect? Nope. He's gaffe prone, has voted on twelve million pieces of legislation, and has spent more than half his adult life in the Senate. But then, so has John McCain. [...] Moreover, Biden is an attack dog. He's serenely self confident in his own national security credentials, and never seems surprised to hear himself attacking Republicans on the issue. He radiates comfort with the issue, rather than simply asserting it. The press corps is used to him as a foreign policy voice, and trusts his experience. And, most importantly, he's an arrogant jerk. That's led him to adopt precisely the right attitude of contempt and disbelief at Republicans who seek to dominate the foreign policy arena in this country. And that may make him exactly the right voice for Democrats who want to drive a few more nails into the coffin of the GOP's reputation."

Yglesias: "Like Ezra Klein I think there's something to be said about the idea of Joe Biden as a VP candidate. In terms of his record on national security issues, he's neither the best nor the worst Democrat in the Senate. But he does have one thing that sets him apart from most Democrats in terms of talking about foreign policy -- confidence. When given the chance to talk foreign policy he's eager to do it and confident that he'll win the argument. [...] Democrats have a tendency to get timid, get defens[ive], or get high-minded (condemning the 'politics of fear' or 'politicizing' this or that) when attacked by Republicans. Biden, though, just responds in kind as if he's obviously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong and stupid. There's real value in that. At the same time, I think putting someone on the ticket who voted in favor of the 2002 AUMF would prove problematic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Today's Geopolitics Lesson

From MA Rep. Edward Markey's Wall Street Journal op-ed (h/t Andrew Stuttaford):

"Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?

If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right."

LEST WE FORGET: A Slow Day At Work

From "Overheard in the Office":

Boss: What are you doing?
Employee: Working.
Boss: Seriously?
Employee: Nah. I'm actually watching videos of bulldogs riding on skateboards. Check it out!
Boss: [Walks away shaking head.]

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:04 PM

June 10, 2008

6/10: Diggin' Up Dirt

With Hillary Clinton out of the presidential picture (although not the vice presidential picture), the general election has begun in earnest. Conservative bloggers are targeting Jim Johnson, the ex-Fannie Mae chairman whom Barack Obama tapped to head his VP search committee, after it was reported that Johnson may have received preferential loans from the subprime lender Countrywide. Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of hypocrisy and arguing that Johnson is the latest example of Obama's poor judgment with regard to his personal associations.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are accusing John McCain of lying after he denied making a statement that he did, in fact, make. The netroots are convinced that McCain's "straight talk" image is undeserved and that he makes a number of false statements which go unreported. Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a provocative Daily Mail article about McCain's first wife, whom McCain divorced after she was disfigured in an auto accident. It remains to be seen whether or not McCain's treatment of his first wife becomes an issue in this campaign, but it's certainly clear that Michelle Obama has already become an issue.

MCCAIN: Going There

The UK Daily Mail's provocative article about John McCain's first wife Carol McCain -- entitled "The Wife U.S. Republican John McCain Callously Left Behind" -- is generating buzz in the liberal blogosphere. The article includes an incendiary quote from ex-presidential candidate Ross Perot, who paid for Carol's medical care following her near-fatal car accident:

"McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory. [...] After he came home [from Vietnam], Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "First wife issues are nothing new. Lots of politicians have them. But John McCain, who will face some trouble from a segment of voters over his current wife Cindy [McCain]'s past prescription drug troubles, cannot be pleased today to see his first wife and mother of his three oldest children in the news. Surprisingly, Carol McCain is defending him, even though he left her after his return from Vietnam and re-emergence as a war hero. Carol charitably says he was having a sort of 'midlife crisis.' Many others say it was because she had been horribly disfigured in a car accident and gained a lot of weight. [...] So, water under the bridge? Or will the thought of a man who leaves the disfigured wife who raised his kids for a younger, rich woman be a turn-off for women voters?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Here's some coverage of John McCain's deplorable treatment of his first wife. Basically, she got into a horrible car accident that left her disabled, at which point he had what seems to have been several affairs with different women before embarking on a months-long courtship of his current wife. Then he divorced his first wife, and married number two -- who conveniently enough happened to have been a wealthy heiress. Now I have ample other reasons for thinking Barack Obama would be a better President than McCain, so I'm not going to pretend that this is my key driving force. But I'll agree with Nick Beaudrot that 'I'm really curious what the more explicitly family-values-oriented conservatives like Ross Douthat think of this particular story.'"
• Nick Beaudrot: "If you think a candidate's behavior in his or her personal life bears relevance to his merits as a Presidential candidate, McCain's dalliances with other women and near gold-digging appear fundamentally disqualifying, roughly on par with anything Rudy Giuliani did to his spouses."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It was interesting...to see this report in the UK's Daily Mail about Mrs. McCain -- the first one -- who is 'seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain's three eldest children.' [...] It's quite a painful story, involving physical difficulties, infidelity, and divorce. [...] Now, I should clarify that as far as I'm concerned, McCain's marital difficulties and adultery aren't especially significant in this campaign, especially years later. I'm inclined to see a distinction made between public and private worlds. I defended Bill Clinton, and said his personal controversies had no bearing on his ability to be a good candidate and a good president, so I can't very well turn around and say the opposite about McCain, no matter how badly he treated his first wife. But therein lies the point: if Clinton's personal history was a matter of tremendous national significance as a candidate and as a president, then it's not unreasonable to wonder why McCain isn't subjected to the same scrutiny."

MCCAIN II: Character Issues

A few conservative bloggers are also discussing the Daily Mail article:

• Douthat responds to Beaudrot's question: "As a card-carrying defender of the Freak Show, I see no reason why McCain's 1970s behavior shouldn't be an issue in the Presidential race; if McCain's beloved high school teacher is relevant to the campaign, then so is his treatment of Carol McCain (and their children). I don't, however, think the comparison to Giuliani quite holds up: Not only because Rudy's callousness was considerably more public than McCain's, but -- more importantly -- because McCain's first wife has remained friends with him, and supported him politically, which contrasts sharply with Rudy's estrangement from his ex-wife and children. And this difference probably explains why McCain's '70s caddishness hasn't become a big issue in the past, and won't become one in this election cycle: The American people, I expect, will take the view that if the wronged party seems to have forgiven McCain for jilting her, it would be churlish not to do the same."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Some McCain supporters take solace in the fact that McCain and his ex-wife are still friends. My take is that it's unrealistic to assume someone could come back from years of torture as a POW, and resume normal domestic tranquility -- even with the person who stuck with them through the whole mess. This, of course, doesn't mean that a survivor has to leave his wife. And McCain doesn't cite this reason as an excuse -- he blames himself. Still, I think the emotional baggage that comes with going through what he went through has to have a dramatic impact on relationships. Personally, this story seems like a bit of a hit job. It's not terribly surprising, since some Hillary supporters -- and some conservatives -- have recently stepped-up attacks on Michelle Obama. Still, it's an issue that is going to come out, so we might as well address it here and now..."

MCCAIN III: This Is Straight Talk?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain after he falsely denied criticizing the media in a speech last week:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "In an interview with Newsweek, John McCain tries to back away from his recent criticism of the media. [...] The problem is, he did say it (video from redlasso). [...] The question is, will the media notice?"
• Yglesias: "It's very strange that John McCain can baldly lie to the press about a nationally televised speech he delivered last week and not get called on it by reporters. This wasn't some obscure address -- I watched it live, as did political junkies all across the land since McCain scheduled it so as to come amidst coverage of the SD and MT primaries."
• Oliver Willis: "John McCain: Lying Or Senile. McCain claims he didn't criticize press coverage of Sen. Clinton. But then, somebody had a crazy idea: let's check the tape. Another John McCain falsehood sees the light of day. Senator, when the light is on the camera is recording you."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "John McCain. Straight talk you can believe in."

MCCAIN IV: It's The Economy, Stupid

Following Obama's attack on McCain's economic agenda and the McCain campaign's response, liberal bloggers are convinced that Obama is winning the economic debate with McCain:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Obama's speech in Raleigh today marked the opening of a two-week offensive on the state of the economy, and the McCain campaign was left sounding flat -- and appearing flat-footed -- in response. [...] Interesting how in the same year Democrats finally catch on that laundry lists leave voters less than excited about your platform, the Republican nominee picks up the trait."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "[McCain's response] seems straight out of [ex-Reagan CoS] Michael Deaver's 3x5 cards in large 'Reagan Font'. As we all know, McCain admits the economy is not an area he knows much about (Cindy [McCain] handles the money). [...] And with a feeble response that he squeezed out today, he's going to have a long, miserable campaign season."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "Obama goes after McCain today on the issue that is going to be front and center in November. McCain has nothing new to offer because he knows nothing about the economy other than what tainted UBS lobbyist Phil Gramm has to say, which means more of the same."

OBAMA: Preparing For The Slime

Liberal bloggers are convinced that despite McCain's rhetoric about running a clean campaign, he and the GOP are preparing to run an ugly campaign focusing on Obama's race and biography:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "As near as I can tell McCain has already settled on a strategy: he's going to run a very negative campaign in which he hammers on Obama as (a) naive about foreign policy, (b) unqualified to command the military, and (c) ready to surrender to al-Qaeda and squander the sacrifices of thousands of brave American soldiers. His supporters will help out with plenty of talk about terrorist fist jabs and 'slips of the tongue' in which they call him Osama on national TV. I don't think it'll work, but it's pretty obvious that this is the direction things are going. McCain seems likely to make this into a pretty ugly campaign."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Barack Obama's worldly upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, as well as his ties to his father's family in Kenya, are what many liberals love about the candidate. Just by being who he is, Obama is more in-tune with the developing world and global perspectives than any prominent politician in memory. Yet we know that in whispers, dog-whistles, and overt statements, conservatives will attack Obama for these attributes. [...] The American electorate is aligned with the Democratic Party on almost every major issue this year. If Obama loses this election, it will be because he won't be able to overcome attacks based around his biography. His campaign must be thinking hard on how to neutralize the coming mud-slinging -- and bracing itself. Welcome to the general election."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwart: "Yesterday the Los Angeles Times ran a story about Floyd Brown's plans to use racially incendiary ads against Barack Obama in the upcoming campaign with the headline 'Opening shot in the battle over crime.' Now, did you know that crime was going to be a major electoral issue this year? Me neither. In fact, with violent crime rates continuing to reach record lows, the issue hasn't exactly been burning up the front pages or the wires. Of course, 'crime' is also one of those code words for 'black thuggery' that has been used by racists and white supremacists since the 1960s as a way of scaring insecure white men with guns and their insecure housewives. Indeed, the LAT headline should have read '...in the battle over scary black people'. [...] We know that Republicans are going to try to make race a major issue in the coming campaign, and we know that their favorite tactic is going to be engaging in dog-whistle politics that employ coded but clear racial appeals without being explicit about the matter. Indeed, they already have been warming up for awhile. The only way that it will work, however, is if the press continues to pretend that it can't hear the whistle -- and that the people doing it are legitimate political operatives, when in fact they're fringe nutcases who the GOP is letting do their dirty work, as always."
• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "Buried in this piece on Obama books coming out this summer and fall, I spotted this little tidbit: '...The conservative Regnery Publishing just announced two books for August: David Freddoso's 'The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate,' and Thomas Blood's 'The Clinton Collapse: How Bill Clinton Lost Hillary Her 'Sure Thing' Nomination (And Might Even Make Obama Lose Too).' [...] Yes, we knew it would happen, but the Swift Boaters are officially back. Well, at least their publisher is. If you remember what they did to [John] Kerry, you can easily imagine the traitor or foreign agent Obama will be when the Swift Boaters are done. The Obama people and progressives everywhere had better be ready."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's streiff argues that the GOP must make personal attacks on Obama if it wants to beat him: "[McCain's] campaign seems to think they can create history in 2008 by beating their opponent on the issues. Good luck. If we go back through the recent elections we find they were decided not on issues but on metaphors. [John] Kerry windsurfing. Al Gore inventing the internet. Bob Dole falling off the stage. The Man From Hope. [Michael] Dukakis in a tank. Etc. [...] The McCain camp has decided, maybe rightly, that if they go after Obama on anything other than his policy positions they will be accused of racism. I have news for them. They are going to be accused of racism and the sooner they man up and deal with that the better off they will be. Even if the low risk strategy for McCain in dealing with the inevitable charges of racism is to only deal with policy differences, somebody has to do the heavy lifting. The Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright is an issue that can strip away all but the most liberal white voters from Obama. [William] Ayers is an issue. [Tony] Rezko is an issue. His quote-a-matic wife is a potential issue. But they are only issues if McCain lets them be. People don't form 527s and give lots of money if they become social pariahs on their own side. They expect to be disavowed, but they also expect the wink and nod. There is no evidence that McCain will do that."

OBAMA II: Get Your House In Order, Senator!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama after the New York Sun's Josh Gerstein reported that Jim Johnson, one of the three people tapped by Obama to oversee his VP search, may have received preferential loans from the subprime lender Countrywide:

• see-dubya: "Cognitive dissonance -- Obama hits McCain on the economy, while using a shady subprime exec for a talent scout."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "This gives us hypocrisy on two levels. First, the Obama campaign made a specific point of scolding Hillary Clinton for hiring Mark Penn as her strategist after he represented Countrywide. Now they've put the selection of his running mate in the hands of someone who got sweetheart deals from Countrywide while running Fannie Mae, which seems a lot more problematic than being a paid flack for the lender. [...] Secondly, Obama has run on a promise to change politics in Washington. Given that he has no executive experience, no foreign policy experience, no military experience, and no legislative track record, it's about the only platform he has left. Does appointing an ethically-challenged, long-time party fixer to a VP search committee look like New Politics or the same old garbage?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The McCain campaign likely views this issue as political manna -- a perfect distraction from Barack Obama's opening economic tour and a helpful talking point in McCain's effort to convince voters that the New Politics is just like the Old Politics. As for the Obama camp, they are attempting to convince the media the issue is 'overblown and irrelevant.' Well, it seems once you wade into the lobbyist gotcha game you can't very well call foul."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The selection of Johnson is yet more proof that this may be a candidate and a campaign that's just not ready for prime time -- or else, it's another troubling indicator when it comes to the candidate's judgment."
• Slate's Mickey Kaus: "Why would Obama, in his first big personnel decision, choose a paleoliberal greedhead with a track record of failure? You tell me! He's described Johnson as 'a friend.' It looks as if he was at best highly susceptible to amicable overtures from someone about whom he should have retained some critical perspective."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Unsurprisingly, the talking points distributed by the Obama campaign in response to the Jim Johnson controversy include a lot of 'hey, look at that McCain adviser!' and nothing regarding Johnson's $21-million-in-one-year compensation as CEO of Fannie Mae. If Obama keeps using the darn-those-greedy-CEOs lines in his speeches, could he at least insert the disclaimer, 'except for CEOs who work on my veep selection committee'?"

OBAMA III: Cash Rules Everything Around Me

Several conservative bloggers are discussing Alexander Bolton's recent article in The Hill, entitled "Obama could raise $100 million in June, fundraisers say":

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The Hill reports that Obama may raise $100 million in June. Has anyone asked John McCain whether he has any second thoughts about the campaign finance law that bears his name?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Scott Johnson relays that Obama will raise $100 million in June -- an amount that reflects the anti-war movement's deep commitment to retreat, the left's hatred of Bush, the energy of the African-American community and youth vote and the war-weariness of the public. Obama will outraise and outspend McCain, but McCain's central message will be two questions that the vast majority of Americans will answer correctly: Do you want to win the war or lose it? Shall the enormous sacrifices made by America's military and their families be for the high purpose of extending freedom to others while protecting our country, or will they be gambled away on wishes and rhetoric?"
• RedState's Moe Lane thinks the $100 million number is laughable: "I was not aware that The Hill was publishing political erotica these days. [...] To get to 100 million in a month several things need to happen: constant (as in, more or less daily) fund-raising events, a veritable blizzard of email blasts and solicitations, a concerted effort by Senator Hillary Clinton to get her supporters to shell out for Senator Obama... and, most importantly, a massive bout of publicity to drive this. None of this is actually happening right now, in case you haven't noticed."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogger Navel-Gazing

Ezra Klein offers some interesting thoughts on the evolution of the blogosphere:

"Back in the early days of blogging, the medium was set apart by style as much as venue. It was shorter, punchier, almost never reported or edited. Blogs read very differently from magazines, and even more differently from newspapers. For some blogs, that remains true. But the last year has seen the rise of reported campaign blogs (and other reported blogs, but I'm going to use the campaign example here). Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith, The Caucus, The Trail -- blogs written by serious political reporters, some of them in a style approximating newspaper articles, all of them dedicated to gathering and disseminating new information (not commentary) about the race. Blogs are, increasingly, just a platform. They're set apart by speed, comments, lack of space constraints, ability to embed video, hyperlinks, etc. They're not set apart by a particular type of content. The terms 'blogging' or 'bloggers' are of almost no analytical use, as they don't describe anything more specific than 'writers' or 'writing.'"

LEST WE FORGET: TV Viewers Outraged At Timing Of Commercial Break

From The Onion:

"LOS ANGELES -- A coalition of more than 20 million television viewers issued a strongly worded statement Monday expressing outrage at the timing of a commercial break that interrupted the program they were watching just as it reached its most compelling point. 'Due to what can only be described as gross incompetence, this poorly placed advertising block left us with little option but to sit through the commercials in their entirety so that we would not miss any part of the show when it returned,' the statement read in part. 'We sincerely hope this unfortunate incident is not repeated, especially right before we find out whether or not contestants on our favorite game shows are going to win big money.' TV viewers last mobilized in December, when a late-night program that at first appeared to be a television talk show was later revealed to be a 27-minute-long advertisement for a juicer."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

June 09, 2008

6/9: And Then There Were Two...

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton received some of her best coverage from liberal bloggers on the day that she bowed out of the race. Clinton's 6/7 concession speech earned effusive praise from nearly every liberal blogger, including many of the NY senator's critics. The netroots were angered by Clinton's defiant "non-concession speech" last Tuesday, and many approached her Saturday speech with some trepidation. But they were surprised and impressed by Clinton's remarks and felt that her endorsement of Barack Obama came across as heartfelt and genuine.

As the Clinton lovefest proceeded in the lefty blogosphere, conservative bloggers were only too happy to remind their liberal counterparts that the RNC has already begun using Clinton's words against Obama...

CLINTON: Bravo, Hillary!

Clinton's concession speech received plaudits from nearly every liberal blogger, including many of her detractors:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "[This was] a gracious and what had to be a very difficult speech to give."
• Ezra Klein: "[This is] what unity sounds like. [A] beautiful speech by Hillary Clinton endorsing Barack Obama."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I think this is very good stuff and certainly explains better than I could why her supporters ought to line up behind Obama. Genuinely moving, and excellent overall -- really a total home run."
• Mark Kleiman: "I was reasonably confident that Hillary Clinton would do the right thing. But I couldn't have bet that she would do it so well. Today's speech seemed to be drawn from a different pile than all the speeches she gave during the campaign. Line-by-line, it was beautifully written and admirably delivered. But more than that, it traced out an argument, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. And most of all, the delivery felt relaxed, cheerful, and unforced."
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "It was a marvelous and heartfelt speech, very skillfully and adroitly delivered. [...] I particularly liked the line about how she may not have finally shattered that final glass ceiling, but there were now 'about 18 million cracks' in it. That truly is the case."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "The speech [was] good. It was touching, and she said what she needed to say -- even though it was doubtless an extremely difficult thing to do. Hilzoy and others have spoken eloquently about the historic nature of Obama's victory. But it's important to remember the truly historic nature of her campaign as well. It's hard not to feel sad for her today."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Hillary struck an extraordinarily difficult balancing act with real grace and eloquence. On the one hand, she needed to signal that she has built a movement of her own and to reinforce the idea that she is the undisputed leader of American women -- both as a genuine point of pride and as proof of her undiminishing influence. Hence the repeated references to the 18 million votes she earned. Yet she needed to do this while signaling unequivocally to her supporters that all the energy and passion she's unleashed now has to be channeled towards delivering the prize she and her supporters coveted with such intensity to someone who has been her bitter rival for nearly 18 months. And she pulled it off. Really an extraordinary performance."

CLINTON II: Hillary Feels The Love

Pro-Clinton bloggers also lavished praise on the NY senator:

• The Huffington Post's Hilary Rosen: "Hillary Clinton gave the speech of her life today and as she endorsed her primary opponent, she cemented her place in history. As importantly, she also shone a path for herself as a national leader for years to come. [...] What is clear, is that she couldn't have given the speech she gave today on Tuesday night. Today, her voice was strong, her mind was certain and her back was straight. She wanted us to know she would be an unequivocal supporter for Obama."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I know many people were upset Hillary didn't do this on Tuesday. One of the reasons I wasn't concerned about it was that I thought her concession and endorsement of Barack Obama, when it finally did come as I trusted it would, deserved to be a standalone historic moment, just as Barack's declaration of victory on Tuesday was. She certainly delivered on that today."
• Taylor Marsh: "[This was] the best speech of Senator Hillary Clinton's political career. [...] Hillary Clinton did what she needed today and then some. No reservations. No pauses. Complete commitment. Hillary is a better candidate today and all I can do is dream about tomorrow. I stand by her today, tomorrow, anywhere, any time, any year. Today and tomorrow that requires me to do everything I can to defeat John McCain, and make sure Barack Obama is elected president in November. That's exactly what I intend to do."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "While a dream was realized when the Democratic Party nominated an African American as our Presidential candidate, a dream was thwarted also, that of a woman nominee. Hillary Clinton honored BOTH moments in this speech. It was one of the best speeches I have ever seen."

CLINTON III: Conservatives Express Their Thanks

Now that Clinton has endorsed Obama, conservative bloggers are reminding Dems that the RNC will use Clinton's past attacks on Obama in their upcoming TV ads:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Hillary Clinton will do her best to walk back her rhetoric over the last six months when she officially endorses Barack Obama for the nomination and general election. [...] That will require a lot of work, especially given all of the blasts she has leveled against the nominee for the past four months. [...] She has a lot of explaining to do as to why she thinks Obama has more qualifications to be commander-in-chief other than 'a speech he gave in 2002', and where he acquired those credentials in the few short months since she made that accusation. Hillary has to also explain how Obama stopped 'dangerously oversimplifying' foreign policy in a time of war. [...] The problem for Hillary is that these statements stick because they have a great deal of truth in them. The RNC has a library of these comments ready for ads in the fall. Every time she hits the road for Obama, the Republicans will remind voters of Hillary's real opinions of Barack Obama. She'll either have to say she was lying then or come up with ridiculous rationales to pretend that Obama has overcome these gaping liabilities."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "As Barack Obama finishes his long twilight struggle against Hillary Clinton, he finds the vaunted Republican 'attack machine' waiting to chew him into pulp. The RNC rolls out MeetBarackObama.com, including such categories as 'Democrats vs Obama', with videos like this. [...] This very much has echoes of 1972, when George McGovern emerged victorious from the Democratic primaries with the 'Acid, Amnesty and Abortion' placard hanging around his neck -- because his Democratic rivals had put it there."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Barack Obama may have lots and lots of reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton at the end of all of this. She has done everything within her power to prevent Democrats from being able to come together earlier and united their party against John McCain."

OBAMA: Barry, You're Out Of Your Element

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Obama's foreign policy views:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson accuses Obama of being inconsistent in his statements about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard: "Obama hammered Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the [Kyl-Lieberman] amendment. [...] On Wednesday before AIPAC, however, the time had come for Obama to support the designation of the IRG as a terrorist organization, eight months after the Senate voted on the subject and after the conclusion of the primary season the evening before. What does Barack Obama really think? Was his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman an elaborate pose exploiting the fears of left-wing Democrats against Clinton on the flimsiest of pretexts? Did his speech to AIPAC expressing support for the formal designation of the IRG as a terrorist entity express his real view? In retrospect, one can see the deliberation and calculation that Obama has devoted to the issue without being able to deduce his real view, if he has one."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "How could someone so well-meaning, allegedly so worldly and so expert in foreign policy manage to insult and upset so many foreign powers before he even gets to the Democratic convention? Well, Obama's errors, whether they stem from domestic pandering (e.g. NAFTA and Colombia free trade) or inconsistency (e.g. Iran, Jerusalem), suggest that there is more to foreign policy than living overseas as a child. And has Obama bothered to talk to some of our allies in the region about his plan to immediately (or is it gradually now?) withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq? I thought we were supposed to consult more with our allies."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Does Hillary Even Want To Be Obama's VP?

Big Tent Democrat argues that an Obama/Clinton ticket is necessary to unify the party: "I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party -- unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate -- the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity. [...] Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP."

Several liberal bloggers disagreed with Big Tent Democrat, arguing that it isn't even clear that Clinton wants to be Obama's running mate:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "BTD has been banging this particular drum for a long time, and I happen to think he's wrong about it. The party will unite just fine around any reasonable VP choice as long as Hillary supports the ticket and rallies her fans to the Obama campaign -- and I think she will. But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much."
• Yglesias: "I think Kevin Drum raises the right issue about this, namely the near-total lack of evidence that Hillary Clinton (as opposed to some number of her retainers) has any interest in the vice presidency. It's certainly true that if Clinton has a strong desire to be vice president, she arguably has it within her power to make a 'I'm on the ticket or there's no unity' play. But if she doesn't want to be VP, then how disgruntled can her supporters really be about that?"
• Ezra Klein: "Like Kevin, I've never quite understood why Hillary Clinton would want the vice presidency. First, the job, as he argues, has serious shortcomings, and there's every reason to imagine she'll be more powerful as the best known Senator in America. But second, by all accounts, she's certain Obama will lose the election, and it's never a good idea to be associated with a losing ticket. Conversely, if she goes back to the Senate, works hard for Obama, and he loses, she can easily assume a de facto role as leader of the Democratic opposition to John McCain, which would set her up more naturally for a run in 2012, if indeed that's what she wants."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Natasha Chart responds to pro-Clinton bloggers (such as Jeralyn Merritt) who argue it would be an unforgivable insult if Obama chose any woman besides Clinton to be his running mate: "I just don't understand that line of reasoning...Is it insulting to John Edwards if Obama picks another White man? Would it insult Bill Richardson if Obama picked another Hispanic? It seems to me that the feminist position would hold that there's more than one woman in this country qualified to be president, and if Obama's pick happens to be female and seems like a good candidate, why shouldn't I be glad of that? I think it'd be worse if he wasn't even going to consider a woman besides Clinton, who isn't sure to want the spot. With as many female politicians as we do have in our party, why shouldn't it seem perfectly normal for some of their names to come up in consideration for top jobs? [...] Considering the number of women in leadership in her campaign, Clinton doesn't seem like someone who'd pull the ladder up after herself."

MCCAIN: More McSame

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain after one of his surrogates, SC Sen. Lindsey Graham, told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that McCain's tax and health care policies were an extension of George W. Bush's policies:

Stephanopoulos: Let me bring Senator Graham back in on this because you brought up two. You said the tax policy and the health care policy were essentially, Senator Graham, John McCain is calling for an extension or maybe enhancement of the Bush policies.
Graham: Yeah, absolutely.

• Think Progress' Ben: "McCain's speech last week represented a feeble attempt to distance himself from Bush, something his top surrogate acknowledges is futile. [...] The simple fact is that Graham is right. McCain is proposing massive tax cuts that primarily benefit higher-income households, ignore other priorities and drive up the national debt by trillions. And McCain's health care policy would raise costs and abandon the uninsured. That sure sounds like an 'extension' and 'enhancement' of Bush's policies."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "John McCain and his campaign have been working diligently to reject any suggestion that he'd offer another Bush term if elected. Given this, I'm surprised his campaign surrogates haven't been prepped with better responses to questions like these. [...] As a rule, Republicans are supposed to disagree with the Democrats' central criticism of the GOP presidential candidate. But if Graham, [MO Rep. Roy] Blunt, & Co. want to tell national television audiences that we're right, I couldn't be more pleased.""
• Oliver Willis: "I find it astonishing that John McCain thinks that we should just follow along with President Bush's economic policies. But I guess when you're the candidate of same-old same-old you shouldn't expect much. [...] As John McCain said: That's not change we can believe in...my friends."

In a related post, publius argues that linking McCain to Bush is a smart strategy for Obama: "Whatever the merits of the Bush III strategy may be, the McCain team clearly feels like it's damaging them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing back so hard on it. Thus, as the general election goes on, McCain is increasingly going to feel the need to play up his maverick side. Of course, all candidates move to the center in the general. But McCain will feel more urgency about it than, say, Bush did. And each time he does so, it will rankle an already-rankled base. And let's be honest -- it's hard to imagine the base knocking on doors this fall to get him elected as it is, much less after several months of hearing him run away from Bush."

MCCAIN II: Adventures In Branding

Liberal bloggers are accusing the McCain campaign of shamelessly changing its message:

• Daily Kos' georgia10: "The transformation from 'primary season' McCain to 'general election' has been remarkable. Gone is the austere black-and-white website and scrubbed is the text that McCain wants to send more troops into Iraq. The not-so-subtle slogan 'the American president Americans have been waiting for' has been tossed aside, and sing-songs about bombing Iran are a distant memory. Welcome the new, general election McCain. His website is now bursting with color, and has an all-too-familiar logo on it. His slogan, riffing off of Obama's, is now 'a leader we can believe in.' His speech on Tuesday? It was all about 'change.' In fact, McCain mentioned 'change' twice as many times as Obama did in his victory speech on Tuesday. [...] But no matter how clever the McCain camp thinks it is by camouflaging itself in Obama's mantle of change and pragmatism, no amount of spankin' new marketing or rebranding can change the candidate himself. No amount of reinvention can alleviate McCain's YouTube Problem, or erase the fact that McCain has voted with President Bush almost 100% of the time over the last two years."
• MyDD's J Ro: "John McCain has had three months to run unopposed and so far, he hasn't been making a convincing case to the American people that he has an overarching idea of where America should be going. I've been watching McCain's campaign closely over the last few months, and the multiple and often competing 'visions' he has been laying out don't coalesce into anything that makes sense. [...] McCain has no coherent vision and seems to be running on his checkered Senate voting record and his war-hero persona. As Holly Bailey and Jon Meacham at Newsweek point out, he is beginning to primarily define himself by what he is not (Bush, Obama), a sure-fire losing strategy. Americans -- who by and large care about their country but don't have the inclination to understand every nuance of policy of character -- tend to elect candidates with a coherent message because they feel secure that whatever a candidate's policies are, they will fit into the message they are preaching."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "It's undeniable at this point -- the McCain campaign is freaking out. In the last week, John McCain revamped his website to look almost exactly like Barack Obama's. McCain's new slogan ('A leader we can believe in') is an obvious retread of the slogan that Obama has been using for most of the campaign ('Change we can believe in'). McCain's painfully bad Louisiana speech spent most of its brimstone angrily denying the criticism that he's running for Bush's third term. The McCain camp is so worried by that line of attack that they had the candidate repeat it verbatim, a major mistake in terms of messaging. [...] McCain's advisors know full well that the GOP brand is trash. [...] Consequently, instead of the two party race that everyone expected we're going to get a Democrat and a guy pretending to be a Democrat in a desperate way that's kind of pathetic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Joe-ology

TPM reader CG speculates about Sen. Joe Lieberman's motives:

"Lieberman is in a very delicate political position. His value to Republicans, and his popularity with them, is that he is a Democrat who criticizes Democrats mercilessly. If he were to become a Republican he would quickly become just another RINO (Republican in Name Only) Senator from New England. His policy positions are, except for his intense support of any military action in the middle east, pretty middle of the road for New England and thus are well to the left of the Republican party. He would be just another Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee -- and they both felt very uncomfortable in the Bush era Republican Party. And this is why he has continued to caucus with the Democrats. But this has meant that Joe has had to walk a tightrope -- he criticizes the Democrats enough to keep his popularity up with the Republicans, but doesn't go so far as to have the Democrats dump him from the caucus. He's played the thin 51-49 majority for all it is worth.

His recent actions, however, may indicate that Joe realizes he can't walk this tightrope forever. His popularity in CT is down near Bush territory, and with the Democrats likely to have a larger majority in the Senate come November, his leverage will be gone. My guess is that he realizes this is his last term in the Senate, and his last year with any leverage, so he's placing an all-or-nothing bet on a McCain victory. Joe is angling for either the VP slot or a high position in the McCain cabinet."

LEST WE FORGET: Conservatism & Heavy Metal

Townhall's Matt Lewis draws an interesting analogy:

"What does heavy-metal music and the conservative movement have in common? Surprisingly, more than you may think. At least, that's what a buddy of mine argues. Here's his theory: In the early and mid 80's both conservatism -- and heavy-metal -- were on the up-swing. But heavy-metal's mainstream popularity turned out to be a double-edged sword. Once the few elite bands started making big money, there was a 'signing frenzy,' where every 19-year-old with a good voice and cool hair moved to LA and instantly got a record deal. This, of course, led to the music basically sucking. [...]

As my buddy says: 'It went from G-N-R and Motley to Poison and Winger. Of course it was gonna die!'

...To which I added my political spin: 'Yeah, we went from Barry Goldwater to Larry Craig. Of course it was going to die...' [...]

Sadly, it looks like we are essentially where heavy-metal was in 1992 -- and we are Warrant -- while Obama is Nirvana (no religious pun intended). Let's just hope McCain can be Metallica or Van Halen -- and survive -- even without the zeitgeist."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:07 PM

June 06, 2008

6/6: Flippity Floppity

Barack Obama and John McCain are both being accused of flip-flopping today. First, Obama made waves when he declared in his speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided." After his statement was criticized by Palestinian leaders (as well as several liberal bloggers), Obama clarified his remark, saying that it would be up to the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate Jerusalem's status. Conservative bloggers immediately accused Obama of "backpedaling" and "cav[ing] to Hamas".

McCain is having his own troubles, however. Last December, in an interview with The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, McCain suggested that the President does not have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of a federal statute. However, one of McCain's advisers recently said that McCain believes President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was lawful -- which appears to contradict the sentiments expressed by McCain in December. Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of changing his position and embracing the Bush administration's controversial theories of executive power. Mark Kleiman writes: "As with torture, so with warrantless wiretapping: McCain was against it before he was for it."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Nunn For Me, Thanks

Now that ex-GA Sen. Sam Nunn supports a review of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which he helped push through the Senate in '93), liberal bloggers are discussing the idea of Obama choosing Nunn as his running mate:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is not a fan of Nunn: "Sam Nunn is the primary reason we have the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy banning gays from serving in the US military. [...] It's nice that Nunn is now saying 'gosh, maybe we should revisit the policy' just in time to become Obama's possible VP (there's been talk of Nunn for the job). But give me a break. Did Nunn reverse himself on the policy? Is he now in favor of gay servicemembers serving openly in the US armed forces? Did he write an op ed for the New York Times proclaiming his mistake? No. Nunn's big 'epiphany' is to suggest that the Pentagon do another study of the policy. Yeah, good idea. Wonder how that'll turn out."
• The Washington Note's Steve Clemons thinks Nunn needs to clarify his views on gays in the military: "Senator Nunn is recommending a 'review' of the policy he helped fashion fifteen years ago, but he is not indicating whether his own views have changed. [...] So despite my sincere respect for many of the good things Sam Nunn has done, I also think it is important for those whispering about the possibility of putting Nunn in the VP slot on the Obama ticket -- or in Obama's cabinet -- to realize that this blog and many others will not stand for someone who still harbors long standing, institutionalized discriminatory views against gay men and women, particularly in the arena of national security when we should be applauding any who want to serve this country. It's time for us to be asking Sam Nunn what his views on gays in the military now are -- and he should tell us. Let's move to 'Ask and Tell.'"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is surprised that Nunn is being considered for VP in the first place: "I'd heard Nunn's name tossed around for a potential appointment in an Obama administration, but I'd seen that as mostly idle talk -- Nunn seems to me to have reached that semi-retired eminence grise phase in his career where he co-chairs panels of various sorts and gets mentioned sometimes as an example of The Kind of Statesman We Don't Have Any More. Efforts to reposition his profile on gay rights, though, seems to indicate that he really would like to get a job. But I'm not even sure what kind of job that would be. He seems like one of several people (Chuck Hagel also comes to mind) who would be a good choice for a position as some kind of high-level nuclear proliferation stopping guy. Something like that, with a narrow-but-important portfolio would be a good post for a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican who was smart on the relevant issues, the kind of thing that would be all about putting disagreements on various other issues aside to focus in on this one grave problem."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: What's With All The Ex-Senators?

dday touts ex-FL senator Bob Graham as a potential running mate for Obama: "I think the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the run-up to the war, the guy who knew that the Bush Administration was lying and told his colleagues all about it, who voted against the authorization, is someone who would amplify that message on the war. He's beloved in Florida and that might help there, but that's not the point. Graham is very intelligent and provides an authoritative voice on foreign policy issues. I don't know that he's the best campaigner, but again I think that stuff is kind of overblown."

Ezra Klein doesn't understand Graham's appeal: "I've never really understood the Bob Graham boosterism. Back when he was a popular politician in Florida, I could see the argument. But the guy is an awful campaigner, comically obsessive compulsive, and has been out of the game for years now. In 2004, when he was running for president and was still an active politician, he was one of the first to fizzle out in the primaries -- and this was against a field dominated by such charismatic orators as Joe Lieberman and John Kerry. He's certainly knowledgeable about national security, but he's not forceful in talking about it, and I think it's hard to look at Kerry's experience in 2004 and say that knowledge and resume are themselves sufficient. So what gives?"

OBAMA: Pander To AIPAC? Yes, We Can!

Several bloggers are accusing Obama of pandering to the more hardline members of the Jewish community during his speech to AIPAC:

• The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg thinks Obama's speech should have had "about ten percent more nuance": "I think Obama's performance at AIPAC was designed specifically to placate those Jews who believe that any criticism at all of Israel is illegitimate. I wish that Obama's speech had about ten percent more nuance in it."
• The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss: "Virtually every speech ever delivered to an AIPAC conference, going back 54 years to the first AIPAC conclave, is a litany of pro-Israeli shibboleths. Obama didn't disappoint. [...] If you were listening for Obama to say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, well, that will be in a different speech."
• Ezra Klein: "Obama offered yet more military aid for Israel, more isolation of Hamas, more insinuations of war against Iran. All in all, a bit disappointing for a candidate who prides himself on speaking tough truths in front of the audiences that need to hear them (he brags often about telling auto executives they need to transition off of oil and investment bankers that they need to curb their greed). The speech, which you can read here, is much more about proving Obama's commitment to a hardline vision of supporting Israel than exhorting our allies in Jerusalem to cease constructing settlements so they have a stronger case to make to the world community. Sigh. Maybe after the election."

Liberal bloggers were particularly critical of Obama's assertion that Jerusalem "must remain undivided":

• TAPPED's Gershom Gorenberg: "The text of [Obama's] speech indicates that he's navigating between his own belief in diplomacy and his perceived need to mouth 'pro-Israel' cliches that are to the right of a none-too-leftist Israeli government. So he correctly argues that the war in Iraq empowered Iran and made Israel less secure. But he also asserts that in a two-state solution, 'Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.' That's exactly the line that made Hillary Clinton's position paper on Israel surrealistic, as I've argued before. In most respects, Jerusalem is already a divided city, and recognizing this politically is the key to precisely the kind of agreement that Obama says he'd like to reach. Alas. 'Yes, We Can' pander to AIPAC."
• Yglesias: "Nobody thinks this is a smart position for the U.S. government to take on the merits, and I suspect a healthy swathe of AIPAC knows it's the wrong position too, but they'd like to see American politicians be willing to say it, and American politicians are very willing to do what AIPAC wants in this regard. Meanwhile, 6 million Palestinians, plus hundreds of millions of other Arabs and Muslims around the world, are watching the candidate of 'change' in American politics outline a patently unreasonable vision for the final status of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And all for what? Would it really have been so horrible from a 'pro-Israel' point of view if Obama had proclaimed himself absolutely committed to Israel's security and just not mentioned anything in particular about Jerusalem?"

OBAMA II: Backtracking On Jerusalem?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after he "clarified" his statement that Jerusalem "must remain undivided":

"Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem 'must remain undivided.' [...]

'Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,' Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said 'as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute' a division of the city. 'And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.'"

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "People may disagree over whether or not Jerusalem should be divided, and about whether it should be an issue in the American presidential election. But regardless of one's views on the issue, here we have an example of Obama going before a constituency and telling them what they wanted to hear, only to reverse himself when his statements got criticized by another group, in this case, Hamas."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barack Obama had to backtrack on foreign policy yet again today, this time on Jerusalem. He tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC yesterday by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling. [...] Unfortunately, in learning a lesson on foreign policy, Obama managed to anger both parties and forced them into making public demands that only make diplomacy more difficult later. This is what happens when candidates with no experience in diplomacy and foreign policy think themselves experts in both."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If further example is needed that Obama lacks experience (Did he not know what current American policy was, or did he not believe the Palestinians would notice his comments? Did he mean to be bold and then think better of it?) and the clarity to steer foreign policy, this is it. He managed to confuse and annoy just about everyone with this one."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The good folks at AIPAC seemed to appreciate Obama's speech, and are way to classy to boo, groan, hiss, or murmur for any line in a speech they find implausible. But they ought to make note when a visiting politician's applause lines have an expiration date."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Yglesias welcomes Obama's modification of his statement: "Looks like Obama's not as unreasonable on the final status of Jerusalem as he tried to imply when talking to AIPAC."

MCCAIN: I'm In Ur Phone, Listenin' To Ur Conversations

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain after one of his advisors said that McCain supports President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program (which appears to contradict the views that McCain expressed in an interview last December):

• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too. Good to know another Republican has so much respect for our Constitution. [...] As [McCain] said in his speech the other night, he's nothing like President Bush."
• Kleiman: "(1.) John McCain said last year that, with respect to wiretapping, the President had an obligation to obey 'laws passed by Congress, no matter what the situation is.' (2.) McCain's policy adviser says now that, despite statutes forbidding them, the warrantless wiretaps conducted under 'national security letters' were 'constitutional and appropriate,' and that 'most people except for the ACLU and trial lawyers' agree. (3.) McCain's press spokesman denied that his position had changed. I hope that's clear. As with torture, so with warrantless wiretapping: McCain was against it before he was for it."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "[McCain]'s been back and forth all over the issue [of FISA] since it's become an issue, but now that he's running for Bush's third term, he's decided he'd better go all in, not only on warrantless wiretapping, but on the theory of a unitary executive to back it up. [...] That seems like a tailor made issue that the Democratic nominee for President could use against his opponent for the next five months. You've got a threefer in this one: McCain really is seeking Bush's third term, down to the unitary executive; yet another massive flip-flop ('I was for the Constitution before I was against it, really!'); and the fact that he and his campaign are nothing more than partially owned subsidiaries of the telcos. What more could Obama ask for in one issue?"
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "There are two critical facts to note from all of this: (1) whether McCain embraces the Bush/[Dick]Cheney/[John] Yoo theories of the omnipotent executive is, far and away, one of the most vital questions of the campaign, since the vast bulk of the radicalism and accompanying controversies of the last eight years -- from spying to detention to torture to extreme government secrecy -- arise out of those theories...and (2) despite how central these issues have been, McCain is simply incapable of forming a coherent position on what he thinks about any of this, switching almost from one day to the next depending on who is asking. This behavior, culminating in his embrace this week of the Bush/Cheney/Yoo theories, severely undermines the two attributes the media relentlessly uses to depict him -- his 'moderate' ideology and his straight-talking, principled independence."

MCCAIN II: The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after his campaign released a new slogan and website logo that resembled Obama's:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Is John McCain trying to be the older, whiter, more conservative Barack Obama? On Tuesday, the Senator co-opted the slogan that has come to personify Obama's candidacy, taking the Illinois Democrat's 'Change You Can Believe In' and altering it into 'A Leader You Can Believe In.' [...] Now there is this. On Wednesday, the McCain campaign put out a new homepage, featuring his new, Obama-like slogan, and an image that seems uncannily similar to Obama's trademark campaign logo -- the red and white stripped valley under what appears to be a blue sun (or in McCain's case, blue sun rays)."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain's new logo appears to be literally ripped off from Obama's logo -- much as his new slogan is. I think this is actually part of McCain's new plan to demonstrate leadership and demonize Obama by appropriating all his campaign iconography and slogans."
• Firedoglake's Swopa: "Following in the footsteps of Dubya's 'compassionate conservatism,' the supposedly principled maverick McCain is going to shamelessly mimic as much of Obama's message as he can get away with. Even though his actual philosophy is one of embracing failure, he'll try to embrace the rhetoric of hope and change, so people who aren't paying attention think there's no difference between the two candidates save for Obama wanting to leave Iraq (which, of course, may be enough to hand him the election anyway)."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Let's face it, John -- in this constant attempt to redefine yourself as the white, dull version of Obama, you're doing yourself a disservice. [...] You're copying not just his slogan, but even the graphic design on his website? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but you're in danger of making your entire campaign subservient to his. And that's just bad form. Look, nobody's going to mistake you for the svelte black guy with new ideas -- you needn't worry. You need to focus on all those people that will be swayed by your charming ex-maverick status, your translucent Republican whiteness, your disturbing, Batman-villain grin whenever you've read one of your own punchlines off the teleprompter, and your encyclopedic ability to have, at one moment or another, every possible position on every issue of the last fifty years."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Checks Cheddar Like A Food Inspector

Ezra Klein analyzes Obama's likely financial advantage over McCain:

"It's hard to appreciate the sheer size of the financial advantage Obama will enjoy over McCain. For Democrats, who're used to being effortlessly outspent, it doesn't even sound plausible. But McCain, with his lax fundraising and decision to accept public financing, will have about $85 million for the election, with another $40 million coming from the RNC, some of which will go to the McCain campaign, some of which won't. By contrast, a very conservative estimate for the Obama campaign's fundraising is $300 million. [...]

In a national election, money isn't everything. Free media matters too. That's why the McCain campaign is desperately pleading with the Obama campaign to do 10 televised debates and townhalls, the better to equalize exposure. But money is how you fund organization. It's how you fund field. It's how you fund ads. It's how you set the terms of the debate. It's how you make the other campaign spend defensively. Obama will be able to fully fund his campaign in every state he thinks he can win and most states he doesn't. And he'll be able to do so while raising the money passively -- unlike McCain, he won't have to waste [time] flying around to endless fundraisers."

LEST WE FORGET: Managing Expectations

Deep Thoughts By Jack Handey:

"Just because swans mate for life, I don't think it's that big a deal. First of all, if you're a swan, you're probably not going to find a swan that looks much better than the one you've got, so why not mate for life?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:04 PM

June 05, 2008

6/5: Get Off His Back

It was interesting to watch the shift in tone of the liberal blogosphere's coverage of Hillary Clinton yesterday. Throughout the morning, the netroots sharply criticized Clinton for her defiant speech on Tuesday night, in which she refused to acknowledge Barack Obama's victory and reiterated her dubious popular vote claim. However, once it was reported that Clinton planned to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama on Saturday, the netroots were relieved. Many bloggers immediately began urging their commenters to lay off Clinton and start reaching out to her supporters.

That said, the netroots aren't done criticizing Clinton yet. The efforts by various Clinton supporters to pressure Obama into choosing Clinton as his running mate are not going over well with liberal bloggers, who describe these efforts as "crass" and "likely to backfire". Josh Marshall warns:

"Obama absolutely cannot give in to pressure to give Clinton the VP slot. If he decides she helps him, that it makes sense for the campaign and his potential presidency, great. It might be a unstoppable combination. But he cannot and I suspect that he will not allow himself to be muscled."

CLINTON: What Was She Thinking?

Before it was reported yesterday afternoon that Clinton plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama on Saturday, liberal bloggers continued to criticize Clinton's defiant speech:

• Atrios: "I tried to be very sympathetic to the Clinton speech [Tuesday] night. I recognized it for what it was, much like the infamous 'Dean Scream' speech it was a speech to supporters, and not to the country at large. Whether it should have been or not is another question, but nonetheless that's what it was. But even given that it really just wasn't right."
• BooMan: "Hardening her supporters against our nominee is an act of great irresponsibility and classlessness. [...] I always thought she'd eventually try to atone for whatever hard feelings she had created by giving a gracious concession speech. But by the time last night rolled around, I no longer expected that. And she didn't defy my low expectations."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I watched Clinton's speech again this morning, and really, delusional and surreal are the only way I can describe it."

The Huffington Post's Hilary Rosen, a Clinton supporter, also criticized Clinton's speech: "By the time she got on that podium [Tuesday] night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. [...] Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would 'use' her 18 million voters. But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks Clinton gave the speech in order to "put herself in play for VP": "I have stated my own preference that she take a more conciliatory tack and acknowledge what seems to be. But let's face it, the Media and her enemies were ready to dance on her political grave and declare her an irrelevancy. In order to put herself in play for VP, against seeming resistance from Obama's circle and the Media, she needed to flex her political muscles. Now Clinton has done that and made 'will Clinton be the VP?' a central question in this campaign. Now when Obama DOES pick a VP, he has to consider what it means NOT to pick Hillary Clinton. She has raised the stakes."

The Field's Al Giordano disagrees with Big Tent Democrat' analysis: "Clinton's gamble [Tuesday] night -- to jerk everyone's chains just one more time instead of gracefully backing the nominee -- which she mistakenly thought would be a demonstration of strength in fact turned out to highlight a major weakness. The tall suggestion that when people cast a vote for for her that they therefore signed up for duty behind every other ambition or agenda she might later desire revealed, again, the stunning hubris that was the downfall of the formerly front-running presidential candidate."

CLINTON II: Better Late Than Never

Liberal bloggers were relieved to learn that Clinton plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama on Saturday:

• Atrios: "I hope take 2 is better."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "It's over. Let us give thanks together."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "If only she'd done this weeks ago."

Other bloggers immediately began urging unity:

• Mark Kleiman: "From now through November 5 Obama supporters should say as many nice things as they can about HRC and her supporters, and no not-nice things whatever. The healing has to start with us, and it has to start right now."
• Balloon Juice's Michael D.: "I hope that Clinton supporters like Jeralyn [Merritt], BTD and Taylor Marsh follow her lead, knowing that their candidate lost fairly and that electing a Democrat has to be the goal. For all the fault they find with him, Obama will be an infinitely better president than the alternative. Finally, I hope Barack Obama supporters will focus more on electing him that they do on what's happened in the past. We'll accomplish more by bringing the Clinton supporters into the fold -- sort of a post-primary 'Marshall Plan' -- than we will by rubbing defeat in their faces."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Just Say No To Hillary

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall reports that Clinton is unmistakably aiming to be Obama's running mate: "Hillary Clinton has, in effect, converted her presidential campaign into a bid for the vice presidency, an unprecedented move and a high-risk gamble for a candidate in her position. Both personally and through intermediaries, in an exceptionally direct appeal for a losing candidate, Clinton has openly signaled her interest in the number two spot -- a post once said to be worth less than 'a bucket of warm spit.'"

Daily Kos' MissLaura doesn't believe Clinton really wants to be Obama's running mate: "If Hillary Clinton really wanted to be Barack Obama's vice presidential pick, what course would make sense for her? To speak privately to Obama, and to make her case. In public to congratulate him on his great victory, and to take back some of her most damaging attacks on him. To say nothing about the vice-presidency except that the choice is, and has always been, up to the winning candidate, and should be, and he should have some weeks to enjoy his victory and move fully into general election mode before he publicly addresses this issue, and that she too needs such time. [Now,] imagine on the contrary that Clinton wanted simultaneously to undercut Obama and to advance her own interests. What then would be her best move? Exactly what she did [on Tuesday night]. We all know Obama is the prohibitive favorite for November, but Clinton still does not believe it, and it's in precisely that (lack of) belief that she's making sure everyone knows she was willing to bail him out all along -- so whatever happens is his fault for not taking her up on her generous offer."

Other liberal bloggers are strongly opposed to the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket:

• Daily Kos' georgia10 calls the Obama/Clinton ticket "a non-starter": "As Hunter has pointed out, the 'Dream Ticket' of Obama/Clinton, despite today's media frenzy, is a non-starter. [...] If Senator Obama can encourage his rivals (and, by extension, their supporters) to focus on the real rival, Senator John McCain, then we can win the White House. In the meantime, Senator Clinton's role in that team -- if any -- will largely depend on what she does over the next few days (and how she does it)."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "A would-be Obama-Clinton campaign would end up being entirely about the Clintons. What they said; what they're doing; who's in control; do they get along; is she undermining him from within. Me, me, me. And besides, if she really wanted to be on the ticket, she wouldn't have engaged in this infuriating slash-burn-point-clap strategy in the first place -- a strategy which, by the way, continued through [Tuesday] night's speech."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: Beware The Women

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks Obama risks alienating Clinton's supporters if he doesn't choose her as his running mate: "Academic feminists largely abandoned Clinton with their wine track male bretheren, and are now reduced to making arguments like Clinton as a VP would be 'bad for women', which probably makes little sense to ordinary working women who see themselves in her struggle. And in John McCain's speech last night, he made it abundantly clear he would make a play for these voters. Would they be satisfied with another woman on the ticket, not Hillary? Would [KS Gov.] Kathleen Sebelius or [WA Sen.] Patty Murray fit the bill? If Harriet Christian is typical, it would be somewhat akin to abusing your wife then trying to make it up to her by giving a ring to your new girlfriend. As Harriet herself indicated on Fox News -- not bloody likely. But how typical is she? When Hillary Clinton herself signaled yesterday that she'd like the VP position, and chose not to concede last night, the only way for Obama to keep her off the ticket is to openly reject her. It will be a clear statement to many of her female supporters -- culled from one of the largest voting blocks in the Democratic party -- that she is unwanted. Obama is now on the spot. Will Clinton's supporters stick with her, or will they get over it? I guess we'll find out."

Jeralyn Merritt, a strong Clinton supporter, answers Hamsher's question: "The worst thing [Obama] could do is put another woman on the ticket. That will appear to her supporters as the most traiterous act yet. Second worst: Pick a conservative. What's the difference between that and McCain? Third worst thing: Don't try and sell that his not choosing Hillary is not a diss. It is and Hillary supporters are not stupid. What's his way out of this mess? He needs to work like crazy to have Hillary say she doesn't want to be on the ticket so she can make the case on the other issues to her supporters. If her supporters believe she wants to be on the ticket and he declines to offer her the spot, his reasons won't matter. A diss is a diss and this would be too big a diss for them to get past."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES III: Can't A Guy Pick His Own Running Mate?

Liberal bloggers are critical of the efforts by prominent Clinton supporters (including BET founder Robert Johnson and FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to pressure Obama into choosing Clinton as his running mate:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "This just strikes me as crass, the morning after a historic day in American politics. [...] What bothers me -- a lot -- is the identity politics of it. [Wasserman Schultz is] worried about the voices of 'female members of congress and those from swing states and key demographic groups.' Only the women? That's what the Clinton campaign has degraded into, the notion that you don't sufficiently respect those women if you're not willing to give Hillary Clinton, the primary loser, whatever she wants? Against the first black nominee for the presidency, that's both ironic and profoundly tacky. He is rejecting identity politics, but a small number of prominent Clinton supporters are willing to wallow in it. [...] Clinton has no more right to be Vice President based on her gender than Obama has right to be President based on his race. Those things were -- and this is the historic part -- never the point. They have both become successful through their own actions, their own personal histories, their own inspirational and skilled leadership."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "This strikes me as a very poor strategy, if this is, in fact, what Clinton's supporters have in mind. Obama is the Democratic nominee for president. He is now the leader of the party, and stands a reasonably good chance of being the leader of the free world. The very last thing Clinton associates should do is try to seize the VP slot in some kind of brute-force move. That's backwards -- threats, ultimatums, and coercion about what he 'has' to do makes it less likely Obama will find the message appealing, not more likely. [...] This notion that Obama can be backed into a corner and forced to accept a running mate is foolish. I's more likely to backfire than succeed."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Obama absolutely cannot give in to pressure to give Clinton the VP slot. If he decides she helps him, that it makes sense for the campaign and his potential presidency, great. It might be a unstoppable combination. But he cannot and I suspect that he will not allow himself to be muscled."

Meanwhile, TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg thinks Obama should pick a running mate by the end of the month: "Obama's base (i.e. the people who voted for him, his millions of donors and the netroots) have become increasingly and now vehemently anti-Clinton in the last month or two. So pull the plug. Allowing Clinton to be the focus of media attention for another month or so would constitute Obama's [Thomas] Eagleton moment. Pick a VP now. There are a dozen great candidates. Vet them and pick one. [...] Cool, decisive toughness is required now. And the one way to demonstrate it is by choosing a VP Obama wants, not one who, if too much time passes, could be rammed down his throat."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller agrees that Obama should pick a running mate "sooner rather than later" -- unless, that is, he intends to pick Clinton: "If he is leaning toward picking Hillary, Obama ought to make her wait -- not as some comes-around-goes-around, spiteful move, but rather as a courtship period in which she (and, of course, husband Bill [Clinton]) have a chance to show just how much they meant it all those times they promised that they would help unify the party and do everything in their power to defeat John McCain. I'm not advising they jerk her around, but merely give her a trial period and then, if Bill continues to be a problem or whatever, have a fallback candidate or two in mind. If, on the other hand, he is not really leaning toward her, Obama ought to do it sooner rather than later because (a) as a few commentators on TV have suggested, correctly, it just allows the 'dream ticket' discussion to continue to dog him and steal headlines from him for the rest of the summer; and (b) relatedly, the worst thing Obama could do, in the interest of party unity, is to appear to have strung her along all summer and before pulling the rug out from under her. Perhaps the better metaphor is the removing of a Band-Aid: It's gonna hurt either way for Clinton supporters, so better to do it quickly."

OBAMA: Speaking Of Judgment...

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's judgment after his former fundraiser Tony Rezko was convicted of corruption:

• Michelle Malkin: "How many times can Barack Obama claim to be shocked, shocked by the behavior of his longtime friends?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "One has to really wonder how well Barack Obama knows his close associates. When Obama finally put distance between himself and his pastor of 20 years, he claimed that the Jeremiah Wright who spoke at a press function in Detroit was not the man he heard preaching every Sunday. Now he claims that the Tony Rezko who got convicted yesterday on 16 counts of fraud and corruption isn't the Tony Rezko who raised over $250,000 for Obama through 2004. [...] Obama's association with Rezko coincides with Rezko's corruption. Obama wants us to ignore the obvious and go away with the impression that Rezko somehow changed after their association ended, but that's simply not the truth. Either Obama turned a blind eye to Rezko's corrupt behavior or he didn't have the judgment to see it."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Among Barack Obama's most intimate spiritual mentors and closest friends are Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and Tony Rezko. He has known each of them for more than fifteen years. Over the past few weeks, Obama has made public statements suggesting that over the years he failed to discern the offensive qualities that have made them notorious. He somehow really didn't know them very well."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama seems to suffer from a singular inability to 'know' his most intimate associates. One day soon, will a 'saddened' Obama tell us that the Michelle Obama we see on video is 'not the Michelle Obama I knew?' Time will tell."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Playing Obama Roulette with the nation's security just doesn't seem like a good idea. Usually the parties nominate two candidates with differences, but neither of whom seem obviously radical or surrounded by radicals or corrupt people. [...] Obama is himself a radical -- though one with a nice smile, beautiful kids and a marvelous eloquence -- and he has a long list of radical friends. Now he also boasts a very close associate -- his mentor and home financier! -- just convicted of more than a dozen federal corruption offenses. A vote for Obama isn't like throwing the dice on him, or betting odd or even on a roulette wheel. It is like betting the green numbers. Or just one of them. Do we really think the country is going to take that sort of risk in the era of al Qaeda and WMD?"

MCCAIN: What Happened To Compassionate Conservatism?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for falsely claiming that he "supported every investigation" into the Hurricane Katrina disaster (McCain actually voted against a proposed commission to investigate the levee failures on two occasions):

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he's voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina. The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levee failures."
• Yglesias: "One virtue of having a reputation as a straight-talker is that you can get away with constant lying. For example, in response to a question about why he twice voted against a commission to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina, John McCain says he voted in favor of every investigation. In reality, just as the New Orleans local news reporter said, he twice voted against a commission to investigate the matter."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "McCain is picking up [George W.] Bush's trick of saying things that just aren't true. Last week, it was Iraq. This week it's Katrina. So, here's a little hint for the media: As with Bush, just because McCain says something, doesn't mean it's true."

Daily Kos' smintheus slams McCain's record on Katrina relief: "John McCain has a stark record of ignoring NOLA and opposing substantive disaster-relief legislation for two and a half years after Hurricane Katrina -- right up until the spring of this year. [...] McCain voted against extending unemployment benefits to Katrina victims up to 52 weeks, and against extending Medicaid benefits up to five months. He even voted twice against establishing an independent commission to examine the governmental response to Katrina. In May of 2006, little over a month after visiting NOLA for the first time, McCain also voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that had $28 billion for hurricane relief. [...] And yesterday he returned, for the second time this spring, looking to use the suffering of NOLA as a photo-op to convey his 'concern' over the inadequate government response to Katrina."

MCCAIN II: Reachin' Out To The Rightroots

McCain held another conference call with conservative bloggers yesterday:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer -- who apparently had a heated exchange with McCain during the call -- criticizes McCain's attitude toward his conservative critics: "Sen. McCain utterly deludes himself if he thinks, as he said in the call, that is is always respectful of his critics on the right. This is important. Self-awareness (as opposed to self-centeredness) is always important in a leader. [...] And it is incontrovertible that McCain has lashed out with particular scorn and anger at those to his right. He called immigration opponents 'nativists' and raised the Jim-Crow-like specter (withOUT using those two words) of those opponents acting like they wanted immigrants to stay at the back of the bus. He famously went way overboard in 2000 in taking what should have been a pointed push-back against overly harsh words from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell into a full-fledged attack on the whole religious right. [...] His insult to the CPAC 2007 has been well reported. His expletive-laced tirade at Sen. John Cornyn has been well reported. His profanity-laced tirades at other GOP senators have been well reported. He refused to shake the hand of Federal Election Commission opponent Bradley Smith, and refused to apologize for his slight, in so doing accusing Smith of repeatedly impugning his own integrity -- without giving evidence thereof. And so on and so on. The point is that this tendency of his is a huge barrier to full-fledged conservative support for his campaign."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I asked McCain about his un-paid Hispanic Outreach Director Juan Hernandez. I'll post the transcript in a bit, but he essentially said that he takes advice from a lot of people, but that it doesn't mean that he will follow it. He also added that if he sees evidence that Hernandez -- or any adviser -- has said things that are truly unacceptable, he would get rid of him."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[McCain] was actually confronted once before about Juan Hernandez, at a campaign stop in Florida, and promised to look into the good doctor's musings about illegal immigration then, too. [...] You can revisit some of Hernandez's greatest hits here; my personal favorite is his fond hope that even seventh-generation descendants of illegals in America will think 'Mexico first.' Are we to understand [from McCain's response to Lewis] that if McCain's made aware of stuff like this and still refuses to dump Hernandez that he simply doesn't disagree all that strongly with the sentiment?"

During the conference call, McCain also elaborated on his challenge to Obama that the two candidates participate in a series of townhall debates. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff thinks McCain's challenge is politically smart: "[McCain] noted that his proposal is similar to one that President [John F.] Kennedy and Senator [Barry] Goldwater agreed to in 1963. By noting Kennedy's willingness, as president, to participate in this format, he challenges Obama to live up to comparisons to JFK. McCain also noted that the townhall meeting setting will 'change the debate' and help bring about 'a different kind of debate.' This, of course, is what Obama claims to stand for. To a considerable degree, this election seems to be about which of the two candidates is (1) genuinely willing and able to work across party lines and (2) genuinely willing and able to change the tone and nature of the debate. McCain has a huge demonstrated edge on the first point. He is now working to gain an edge on the second."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Barr Effect

Allahpundit criticizes Libertarian candidate Bob Barr's intention to aggressively compete in GA and NC, which may put those states in play for Obama:

"I can understand a third-party run if, like [Ross] Perot, you command a minority so sizable -- 20 or 25 percent, say -- that the party simply has to address some of its concerns, if not in this election then in the next. A five percent minority doesn't do that. You can make up that amount elsewhere by doing a better job of mobilizing your base or pandering a bit to other constituencies at the margins. If you're going to strike at the establishment, in other words, you'd better do it hard enough that the reaction is fear, not anger. How do you think libertarians will be received if this tool hands us President Obama?"

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Gets All Up In Joe's Face

Wonkette's Jim Newell adds his own spin to reports that Obama and McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman had "an intense, three-minute conversation" on the Senate floor yesterday:

"The worst U.S. Senator, 'Grampa' Joe Lieberman, has been needling (overtly mocking) Obama a little bit too much recently, it seems, leading to this fantastic confrontation today: 'Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.' Obama's stance was 'intimidating,' according to the reporter, who is most likely a white person. Look at how Obama really stuck it to that frumpy fuck: 'Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.' Then some Irish cops arrested Obama and put him on death row for attempted murder, without a hearing."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

June 04, 2008

6/4: A Tale Of Three Speeches

Liberal bloggers experienced some conflicting emotions last night. On the one hand, they celebrated Barack Obama's historic triumph, which several bloggers described as the greatest upset in the history of American presidential politics. The netroots were also thrilled by Obama's victory speech and claimed that it made John McCain's speech look awful in comparison. On the other hand, liberal bloggers were angered by Hillary Clinton's defiant speech, in which she refused to acknowledge Obama's victory, continued to talk about her electability, and "repeat[ed] her bogus popular vote argument". Markos Moulitsas fumed: "She hasn't said one nice thing about Obama. It's all about her. Period. There is nothing else that matters." Many liberal bloggers viewed Clinton's speech as further evidence that she shouldn't be Obama's running mate -- especially now that the RNC has begun using Clinton's words against Obama. BarbinMD summarizes the views of many in the netroots (as well as Nancy Pelosi) when she writes, "If Hillary Clinton was named as Barack Obama's running mate, we would be facing six months of this. Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts that McCain's speech was weak. However, they're arguing that Obama has suffered irreparable damage from the protracted Dem primary and will have a tough time beating McCain.

DEM FIELD: Yes He Did!

Liberal bloggers are celebrating Obama's victory and emphasizing its historic nature:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Put aside delegates, Bylaw Committees, talking points, pundits, and polls. Put all of that aside and tell me that this morning, right now, this isn't a nation to be proud of. Tell me that this doesn't make you feel like anything is possible in the greatest country on earth. Tell me that this ripple of hope won't capture the imagination of people who still look to the United States as a beacon. Go ahead. I dare you."
• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "We will remember this evening for the rest of our lives. [...] Where were you when Barack Obama won the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States?"
• Atrios: "It was at the first Yearly Kos in Las Vegas that a prominent Dem staffer told me, 'Obama's running.' I don't think I quite believed it at the time, though I understood it would be game changing to some degree if true. I think that due to the extended primary season we've lost sight to some extent just how game changing this is. Being at an Obama party with a substantial African-American presence, it really sunk in how much this is a 'holy shit' moment. Whatever happens next, it is an historic moment."

DEM FIELD II: See? This Is Why She Can't Be His Running Mate

Liberal bloggers are upset -- but not surprised -- that the RNC has already begun using Clinton's words against Obama:

"Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.

'Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,' Clinton says in the one-minute video [...] 'I think it is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. And I believe I have done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.'"

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "If Hillary Clinton was named as Barack Obama's running mate, we would be facing six months of this. [...] Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Thanks, Hillary! But then again, she doesn't care. This is all about her."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Oh joy. The RNC will go to any length to exploit what they consider a 'dems divided' storyline in the next couple days. And they're wasting no time, circulating a video of Clinton questioning Obama's national security credentials. [...] This is just one of the reasons why this phase of uncertainty needs closure very, very soon."

DEM FIELD III: Hillary For VP? Hill No!

Many of Obama's online supporters are strongly opposed to an Obama-Clinton ticket:

• Moulitsas: "Okay, so Clinton is now in the bargaining phase of grief, apparently. She won't drop out until she can try to weasel her way onto the ticket. Here's the bottom line -- if Obama takes Clinton, it would be a sign of weakness as Clinton -- holding few cards -- is apparently set on sabotaging him if she can't get what she want."
• Cole: "So the night Obama wins the nomination, the entire media coverage is focussed on Clinton's brazen and successful attempt to hijack the limelight with story of her struggle and her desire to be VP. Is there really anyone who can not figure out that five months of her attempting to upstage Obama followed by perhaps 8 years of the same would be a disaster? Really? Anyone?"
• Moulitsas agrees with Cole: "Funny how Obama's victory night is turning into a non-stop discussion about Hillary Clinton. And that's one reason why Obama can't put her on his ticket -- the Clintons overshadow anything around them."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I hope at this point that Obama has the strength to turn her down -- gently. He should bring in former rivals into his cabinet and should offer Clinton a cabinet post, on the [Abraham] Lincoln model. But to have endured the kind of campaign the Clintons ran and concede to her wishes now would be an act of weakness that the Clintons would exploit were he to become president. Obama needs to regain the momentum and clarity of his early insurrection. He would not do that by adding Clinton to his ticket."
• Mark Kleiman: "Note that Obama's text, inclulding the gracious shout-out to Clinton, was on the Web an hour before she spoke. He offered an olive branch, and she rudely slapped it aside. That should finally answer the question whether she would make a good running-mate."

CLINTON SPEECH: So Much For Unity

Liberal bloggers are angry that Clinton gave such a defiant speech and refused to acknowledge Obama's victory:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I've found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different. I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who've been enabling her behavior, I'd say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn't concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he's won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama's campaign on its 'achievements,' but barely musters a single good word about him. I don't know what the fallout will be, but at minimum, I'd say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama."
• Ezra Klein: "Clinton's speech was a curious spectacle. It's not merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't even mention that anything had changed. She congratulated Obama on his campaign, but not on his win, or even his likely win. Instead, she continued to talk about her electability, her desire to 'count every vote' (every vote, save for a few stragglers in South Dakota, has now been cast and counted), her ability to see Americans whose poverty renders them 'invisible' to the other candidates, her faith in the continued efforts of her supporters. It wasn't merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't stop running, didn't stop attacking."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary's entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters -- instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama. Yes, there's a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made 'invisible?' Who's supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party's supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment."
• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "Hillary Clinton is 'making no decisions tonight.' The crowd erupts. Yes, drag this out longer. Smart. Elect McCain. Ensure that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Iraq War continues, tax cuts continue to reign down on CEOs and torture becomes state policy. Those are some smart Democrats cheering for that line."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman."
• Moulitsas: "She hasn't said one nice thing about Obama. It's all about her. Period. There is nothing else that matters."
• In a separate post, Moulitsas writes: "So Clinton, in her speech, once again mentioned the URL of her website, while the URL was all over her podium. You go to her website, and you're met with a petition they're asking visitors to sign [which says] 'I'm with you Hillary and I'm proud of everything we are fighting for.' If you 'sign' it, does it go to a 'thank you' page? Of course not. It goes straight to her contribute page. Money. That's why she's staying in. To squeeze her hardest core supporters of the cash necessary to pay off her personal loans to her campaign."

Open Left's Chris Bowers urges his readers to sign Clinton's online petition and ask her to suspend her campaign: "Since she asked, I suggest that you send her a message on her website. Tell her that it is time to suspend her campaign ASAP, and acknowledge that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Really, this needs to happen tomorrow, because otherwise the media focus will be on Clinton's refusal to concede and a continued division within the party. However, I will settle for Thursday, at the latest. [...] We have been divided long enough. The time for that division to end is now."

CLINTON SPEECH II: It's Over When She Says It's Over, And Not A Minute Sooner

Pro-Clinton bloggers defended Clinton