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 June 10, 2008 01:22 PM