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 June 13, 2008 02:03 PM