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 June 11, 2008 01:04 PM