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 June 5, 2008 01:22 PM