July 31, 2008

7/31: McCain Brings The Nasty

John McCain's recent attack ads against Barack Obama -- specifically his most recent ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- are dominating the political blogosphere's attention. Liberal bloggers are divided in their views about McCain's "Celeb" ad. Some think the ad is a pathetic attempt to generate free media that won't be effective in swaying public opinion. Others think the ad is a despicable attempt to appeal to people's racist instincts by linking Obama to "oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women". Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are (mostly) pleased by the negative turn that the McCain camp has taken, which they attribute to the recent promotion of strategist Steve Schmidt. They believe that McCain can only win by defining Obama in a negative light, and that the liberal blogosphere's angry response to the "Celeb" ad is proof of the ad's effectiveness.

In other news, liberal bloggers are buzzing about ex-McCain strategist John Weaver's criticism of the McCain camp's recent tactics, which they see as evidence that the McCain camp's negativity is causing a backlash. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are linking to Dana Milbank's column that mocks Obama for being "presumptuous." The excitement that Weaver's and Milbank's respective words are generating in the blogosphere illustrates how people in politics are never more influential than when they're criticizing their own side.

MCCAIN: And We've Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing the McCain camp's latest attack ad, which describes Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" while showing clips of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Many liberal bloggers view the ad as a racist dog-whistle:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I note with interest today, John McCain's new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women. (See today's new ad and this from yesterday.) Presumably, a la Harold Ford 2006, this will be one of those strategies that will be a matter of deep dispute during the campaign and later treated as transparent and obvious once the campaign is concluded."
• Atrios: "He's An Uppity Negro Who Wants To Fuck Your Sister. It is the path that the McCain camp has chosen. They're allowed. But if the word 'presumptuous' comes out of the mouth of a journalist one more time I'm gonna go Elvis on the teevee."
• Ezra Klein: "I seem to remember that midway through the Democratic primary, there was a lot of chatter about how Obama's promise of a 'new politics' meant he couldn't really go on the attack, as that would generate terrible media coverage and sink his campaign. Interestingly, this has not been a problem for McCain. Apparently, McCain proved himself committed to a politics of honor and decency sometime between 2001 and 2004, and can now go around running crypto-racist ads and lying about Obama without any fear of reprisal."
• dday: "Wow, this is just transparent. There's no reason to include Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in this ad. None. It hangs on the word 'celebrity' being included, which means it could have just as well been Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Anyway, all the footage is from Obama's Berlin speech, not the red carpet. This is absolutely meant to juxtapose images of white women with images of a black man. They even dissolve into one another! [...] Right now we have a press narrative entirely focused on Obama, whether or not he's 'ready,' whether or not he's 'presumptuous,' whether or not he's 'equipped to lead.' It's high time there was a bit of focus on McCain, and the truly nasty, racially coded campaign he is now running."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is particularly disgusted by the ad:

"Let's do a quick rundown of the identity politics at work...

• Obama is a girly-man. The ad only compares Obama to female celebrities, which is a direct shot at Obama's 'manliness.'
• Obama will sleep with your white daughters: Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are known for their sexuality as much as anything else. That must go for Barack Obama, too. And the history of attacking African-Americans in association with white women is such a positive one.
• Obama is too young: For a campaign that is hyper-sensitive to attacks on McCain's age, they certainly have no problem attacking Obama's age. Which is what comparing Obama to Spears and Hilton is.
• Obama is a Hollywood liberal: This is also a run of the mill attack on Obama as a Hollywood, liberal elite, in line with decades of conservative backlash narratives.

This is really atrocious stuff, and trying to bring out all of the worst aspects of America in order to win an election. At this point, the McCain campaign is just hitting Obama with whatever it can think of, and seeing if Obama will respond. It works, too, as they get tons of free press out of it. Given that political attacks take on their own life, the best response for Obama is probably to start making attacks of his own."

MCCAIN II: Race-Baiting? What Race-Baiting?

Conservative bloggers are pushing back against Josh Marshall's claim that McCain's ad is designed to "associat[e] Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women":

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Oh, Josh. Tell me that you had to drink half a bottle of whiskey to numb the pain of writing that. [...] The message [of the ad] is fairly clear: Barack Obama doesn't want to be with Paris Hilton (what sane man who values his health would?); he is Paris Hilton. I can understand why people don't want to hear that, but that's hardly our fault. Seriously: if the Democrats don't want us to compare their candidates to fairly vacuous celebrities with no history of accomplishments, then they can start nominating better candidates. But full points for doing your part in bringing the word 'uppity' back into the bounds of political discourse, Marshall. Although I think that your Magic Racist-Detector Whistle is broken: I for one can't hear a damned thing..."
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Look, I understand that liberals are frustrated at Barack Obama's inability to pull away in the polls, despite all the favorable tailwinds he's enjoying and the fact that John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign. I'd be frustrated too! But that isn't a reason to make yourself sound like a paranoid idiot."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "The recent McCain ad where he makes fun of Obama's celebrity status, happens to feature a picture of Britney Spears to illustrate its point about the vacuousness of fame for fame's sake. [...Marshall is] usually above this sort of thing, so I note with interest his new tactic of baselessly crying 'racism!' where none can be found."

On a related note, conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of "race-baiting" after he made the following remarks about McCain's recent attack ads:

"[Republicans] know that you're not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they're going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they're saying is 'Well, we know we're not very good but you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency, he's a got a funny name.'"

• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "It's clear [Obama]'s going to play the race card all the way to November, and maybe beyond. If you criticize him, you're a racist, to one degree or another. Obama is the uncriticizable, unopposable candidate: If you breathe a word against him, you must don the scarlet R (for you know what)."
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "Obama Accuses McCain of Race-baiting. [...] I'm sure the Washington Post is hard at work on a front-page story debunking this scurrilous and unfounded accusation."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "This isn't the first time either that the left has gotten impatient with the lack of racial attacks from McCain and demagogued him anyway just to defibrillate the narrative (as they also did with Hillary), but it's unusual to see the Messiah himself stoop to making the charge instead of outsourcing it to an aide or waiting around for one of his slimier fans to do it for him."

MCCAIN III: Britney Spears? In An Attack Ad?

Other liberal bloggers aren't especially offended by McCain's attack ad; they just find it absurd and ineffective:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "McSame's promise to run an honorable campaign is holding up about as well as his wedding vows to his first wife. [...] But it's hard for me to get riled up about this spot because it's just so lame. It feels like someone in the McSame campaign is trying ever so desperately to imitate big bad Lee Atwater and they just can't quite get it right."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "We've been saying for weeks that the McCain campaign had nowhere to go but negative. But, even in your wildest imagination could you have envisioned that he'd be using Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Seriously? It's a fricking presidential election in the middle of a war and a recession -- and that's what the GOP nominee is throwing out? It's an embarrassment to this country."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I have no idea how voters will respond to stupidity like this ad. Maybe they'll find it compelling. Who knows. But it seems to me the ad tells us very little about Obama, and a whole lot about the shell of a man McCain has become."
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "There's a fine line between smart and clever, and a similar border between clever and stupid, and John McCain's campaign ads keep on standing on all the wrong sides. In their desperate attempts to undo the success of the overseas trip that would probably have never happened if the McCain campaign hadn't dared the Obama team to take it in the first place, McCain's ad people have decided to attempt to try to play Obama's popularity as a bad thing -- comparing the candidate to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. (Which is of real benefit to Spears and Hilton!)"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Did the McCain camp really think it was a good idea to air an ad that emphasizes how popular Obama is?"
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Maybe what really bothers McCain about Obama's ability to pack 'em in -- no matter where he goes -- is the fact that he's pretty much a frustrated celebrity himself. After all, how many Senators trade in on their media-love affairs by appearing in 'Wedding Crashers' AND '24'?"

MCCAIN IV: Seriously, Stop It, You're Embarrassing Yourself

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about ex-McCain strategist John Weaver's criticism of the McCain camp's recent tactics:

"With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had 'enough.' The ad's premise, he said, is 'childish.'

'John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down,' Weaver said. 'Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags.' [...]

He added: 'There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop.'

Liberal bloggers are using Weaver's comments to bolster their argument that McCain is damaging his own image with his recent attacks on Obama:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Over the last few years, McCain gave up nearly every substantive position that undergirded his maverick image. But he did retain the basic image that made him so popular among moderates -- the jocular yet dignified bipartisan figure who had a core sense of decency. (I acknowledged as much in a recent column.) Now, I think McCain is in danger of losing that as well, and that's why you see people like Weaver taking the extraordinary step of complaining in public."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It sounds like longtime McCain advisor John Weaver agrees that McCain's campaign is in imminent danger of going overboard."
• Benen: "What's striking about this is that Weaver sees McCain as a hero. An example of American greatness. [...] Weaver, to borrow a phrase, is a true believer when it comes to McCain -- all McCain needs to do is show voters what's in his heart, and he'll do just fine. But McCain has clearly chosen a different path, and in the process, done something Dems have wanted to do for years -- make McCain appear small, self-indulgent, and rather ordinary."
• BarbinMD: "I'm guessing that McCain will now begin questioning Weaver's loyalty since that would be much easier than questioning his own decision to embrace Rovian tactics in his 'respectful' run for the presidency."

Conservative blogger Ramesh Ponnuru agrees with Weaver: "Weaver's right. McCain's recent ads are juvenile."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain slams Weaver: "The past two weeks have (finally) seen something like a spark of life in the John McCain campaign, for which Steve Schmidt deserves credit. So, now that Team Maverick has seized the initiative and started scoring points against Obama, who's complaining? The guy who ran the McCain campaign into bankruptcy last year."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks ex-McCain advisers like Weaver should "shut up": "For the first time this general election cycle, John McCain is driving the message. The reason? There has finally been, I believe, a tacit admission that John McCain cannot win a beauty contest against Barack Obama -- but that he can 'win ugly' -- as they say in football. [...] No doubt, this strategy is the result of the promotion of Rovian adviser Steve Schmidt. It will be decried as 'negative,' but as they say, 'politics ain't beanbag.' Rove managed to win two elections doing exactly what Schmidt is now attempting, and at the end of the day, it's merely a smart political strategy. [...] Sadly, some Republican talking heads -- and former McCain advisers -- are criticizing this strategy. In my estimation, these folks should shut up. One piece of advice the McCain folks ought to adhere to is to simply not allow these naysayers to influence his team's message and strategy. [...] If [McCain] gives into the criticism, in my estimation, he has lost."

MCCAIN V: Bravo, McCain Campaign!

Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservative bloggers like McCain's latest attack ad:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "A strong ad from the McCain folks."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "[The ad has] very well-focused message...More evidence of the improved effectiveness of Maverick's campaign since Steve Schmidt came aboard. Making the election 'all about Obama' -- a referendum on the Democrat's character and qualifications, with John McCain running as the Not Obama candidate -- is really the only hope for the GOP this year."
• Allahpundit: "[The ad is] surprisingly savvy. This is the third ad in nine days to spoof the cult of Obama but the first one to employ it to any useful end, pairing it with the shots of celebutante nitwits to make him look like a 'famous for being famous' lightweight per the hot-button coup de grace. The true stroke of brilliance, though, is how it plays the media. Team Maverick is very shrewdly trying to close the money gap by using gimmicky spots that they know will be buzzed about -- with the requisite free airplay -- on cable news. Britney and Paris guarantee that this will end up on crap like Hardball."
• Michelle Malkin: "The McCain camp and I on the same page for once? Yes, it's true! They released an ad called 'Celeb' mocking Obama as the biggest, emptiest celebrity in the world and taking on Obama's opposition to offshore drilling. Good stuff."
• Lewis: "Critics who deride the 'celebrity' ad as puerile are majoring in the minors. They should realize this one ad is merely part of a larger strategy. You can't make everyone happy with every message of the day, but the larger narrative is what matters. This is not going to be pretty, but the election is going to be a referendum on Barack Obama, like it or not. The real question is whether or not McCain, himself, has the stomach to allow his team to run this sort of campaign. Winning will probably mean that he is viewed by the media as having 'changed' and gone 'negative.' McCain has often said he would rather 'lose an election than lose a war.' My question is whether he would rather lose an election than lose his popularity with the media elites. To beat Barack Obama, he can't have both."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Like Britney and Paris, Barack Obama hasn't earned the status that He (like they) so enjoys. [...This ad] has annoyed many people. Most presidential campaign ads this cycle, especially the drearily self-righteous ones excreted by the spendthrift Obama campaign, have come and gone with no one either noticing them or caring about them. Why are people talking about this one? Because it hits close to home."

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini gently critiques the ad: "The ad leads off with a great first half. And the 'more foreign oil' line is killer. Where it trails off is that the portrait doesn't match the frame. After framing up Obama's celebrity perfectly, the ad transitions into a standard Republican litany on taxes and gas prices. What exactly this has to do with Obama being like Paris Hilton isn't clear. The ad would have been more thematically seamless if it honed in on the one or two best examples of Obama's naivite or selling American interests down the river to please the adoring Berlin crowds. Obama's 'without preconditions' quote on Iran would be a perfect example. The theme: Obama's celebrity naivite isn't just misguided. It's dangerous."

MCCAIN VI: The Post Calls BS

On Tuesday we noted that liberal bloggers were criticizing the major news organizations for describing McCain's latest attack ad without mentioning that the ad's most inflammatory charge -- that Obama cancelled a scheduled visit with U.S. troops in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras" -- is false. Yesterday, The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz earned praise from liberal bloggers when they wrote a front-page article entitled, "McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence":

"For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true."

Liberal bloggers are praising Shear and Balz for declaring that McCain's charge wasn't supported by the facts:

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Progress! Today's Washington Post comes through with a great front-page piece devoted entirely to debunking McCain's false attack on Obama's canceled troop visit. [...] The sweet sound of journalism, ladies and gents."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Good for the Post -- this is what the press should do. No one's asking the media to pick sides -- we're just asking them to call BS to (1) create incentives to tell the truth and (2) inform a busy public who doesn't always have time to investigate the truth. If the Obama campaign does something similar, the Post should slap it on page A1 too."
• Benen: "From the 'credit where credit is due' file, I argued the other day that news outlets were repeating the McCain campaign's demonstrably false smear about Barack Obama and wounded U.S. troops in Germany, but neglecting to point out reality. As far as the public was concerned, McCain was making an attack; Obama said the attack is false. Who's right? It's apparently the media's job to pass along press releases, not report the news. But I'm pleased to note that some outlets have been responsible about this. NBC's Andrea Mitchell told viewers this week that the McCain campaign attack 'literally is not true.' The NYT ran a decent story yesterday, and the WaPo has a very good front-page item today."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "In a front page story in today's Washington Post, the paper comes as close as they can to saying that John McCain is outright lying about Barack Obama in an attempt to smear him as unpatriotic. [...] McCain's strong suit is his 'maverick' status. Now he's become just another dirty, lying (Republican) politician, and the media, his 'base' as he calls them, has suddenly abandoned him (for the first time that I can recall). These kind of attacks can work, but only when the media agrees to play along (see: the media's quiescence to the Swift Boat attacks against [John] Kerry). In this case, the media, starting with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, refused to play along, and insisted, instead, on reporting the facts. That's when this kind of negative campaigning can go horribly wrong for a candidate, essentially blowing up in their face. And in McCain's case, it just has."

MCCAIN VII: Pants On Fire

Several liberal bloggers noted that the McCain camp appeared to back away from its charge that Obama cancelled his visit to a military hospital because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras":

"McCain's camp, accused in the New York Times and the Washington Post this morning of distorting Obama's canceled trip to a military hospital in German, seems to have backed off the core of the charge: That he canceled the trip because 'the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.'

'It does now seem that Barack Obama snubbed the troops for reasons other than a lack of photo-op potential,' writes McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb this morning, contradicting his campaign's televised ads and his candidate's statements."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It didn't take them long to back down. Front page stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times today apparently did the trick. McCain can't afford to lose his 'base' over this."


• Aravosis: "McCain's blogger: Our attack ad and message for the past 4 days has been false. With bloggers like that, who needs the liberal blogosphere. Of course, that was before McCain's blogger, Michael Goldfarb, said that 'Barack Obama snubbed the troops.' So apparently the McCain campaign has decided it's not time to stop the lies."

Meanwhile, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat argues that "dirty politics works" and that Obama isn't attacking McCain enough: "So John McCain is being bashed for his mendacious ad about Obama not visiting the troops because he could not bring cameras. Whoop dee doo. The problem is for three days that ad got run on free media. Dirty politics works and McCain has now shown who will go as far down in the gutter as it takes. And why not? Dirty politics works. The Gallup tracker now has a once 9 point gap Obama held down to 4. Rassmussen has its Obama 7 point gap down to 2. Three guesses how that happened. Keep waiting for the 'new' politics and see where it gets you. Here is where Obama has lost his way -- not in the positive side of his campaign, that's worked well. It is in his negative branding, or lack there of. When is the last time you have heard the Obama campaign use the words Bush and McCain together? This ain't rocket science. If the Obama campaign is not saying 'Bush's third term' half the day, it is not doing its job. That's politics folks. Wishing won't make it not so."

digby adds: "Just a little reminder. It was precisely this time of year in 2004, the lull before the Olympics and the conventions, when they rolled out the swiftboat smear. It's when the media are hungry for something juicy and mean and the Republicans are ready to feed it to them. And don't think because they have been somewhat sympathetic to Obama up to now that they won't run with this stuff. Remember, it doesn't matter if they agree with it, if they stage a hissy fit, if they write long denuncuations of McCain or run fact chacks. All that matters is that they get it out there for the McCain campaign. The swift boat liars never did a big ad buy. They got almost all their play through pimping the controversy and having the media show their ads for free."

MCCAIN VIII: Who's The Elitist?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after The Huffington Post's Isabel Wilkinson reported that the AZ senator wears $500 Italian shoes:

"This summer John McCain is traveling in style. He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop -- from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA. The Calfskin loafers, with silver-tone 'Gancini' buckles, are imported from Italy. In response to Barack Obama's foreign tour, McCain spent much of his energy last week emphasizing his focus on domestic issues. What better way to show his American pride than to tour the country in Italian leather?"

• The Nation's Christopher Hayes: "If I were a right-wing blogger, and I found out that Barack Obama was wearing Ferragamo loafers that cost $520, I would spend about 50% of my waking hours making sure everyone knew this. I would mock him for being an out-of-touch elitist and make jokes like, 'If you think that's a lot, you should see how much his purse costs.' I would send the link to Drudge and wait for Instapundit to pick it up, and then watch gleefully as Fox News ran segments about how Barack Obama's $500 loafers vitiate his entire economic platform. But of course, I'm not a right-wing blogger. And the $520 shoes belong to John McCain. And frankly, I don't think how much his shoes cost matters one whit for how he'd govern the country."
• Benen: "If Barack Obama paid $520 for a pair of Italian loafers, every voter in America would know about it. Every media outlet would report it and every Republican would talk about it. I'm reminded, of course, of John Edwards' $400 haircuts. Last year, that story was everywhere, with the Washington Post writing multiple articles about it. 'How could Edwards relate to regular folks if he has that kind of lifestyle?' the media asked, over and over again. Indeed, the media seems to go to great lengths to look for evidence to bolster the far-right meme that Obama is some kind of outsider. From bowling to orange juice to arugula, reporters love to characterize Obama as something less than a 'real' American. Well, McCain has a half-dozen homes and spends on shoes what some families spend on rent. All the while, he advocates more tax cuts for millionaires, opposes increases to the minimum wage, and tells Americans their economic problems are in their heads. Which candidate is outside the American mainstream?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The big challenge facing Barack Obama is whether or not ordinary people can relate to him. After all, he's a big-time elitist. He thinks that it's better, all things considered, to speak two languages rather than one. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to flaunt his regular guy attributes, showing off his $520 Salvatore Ferragamo Pregiato Moccasins in a variety of settings in much the same spirit that the legendary straight talker once traveled, like a man of the people, in the First Class car on the Acela to Philadelphia."

OBAMA: Even Dana Milbank Finds You Presumptuous, Obama!

Conservative bloggers are still buzzing about Dana Milbank's Washington Post column arguing that Obama is "presumptuous":

• Allahpundit: "Free advice for Obama: If even [Keith] Olbermann's regulars think it's time for a hubris check, it's time for a hubris check."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Given that even the likes of Dana Milbank are beginning to get tired of the arrogance that now emanates from the Obama campaign, there is the possibility that the media will regain its sobriety. The question is whether it will be able to do so before Election Day."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Some time ago, it seemed clear from emerging trends in press coverage that the meme of EgObamania presented a potential threat to Barack's campaign, as I noted here, back in March, and also here, more recently. Well, Dana Milbank has picked up the theme -- in a column titled 'President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour' -- and run with it like an Olympic track star. What's truly remarkable is how quickly the press can turn on a candidate that it has lionized. Perhaps the reason for the increasingly hostile coverage lies in a sentence at the end of a paragraph deep in Milbanks piece: '[T]here are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.' What kind of ineptitude does it take to turn a press contingent once panting with adoration into a vicious pack of attack dogs? Could it be one more sign that the Obama campaign isn't quite ready for prime time?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Macro Factors Vs. Micro Factors

Ezra Klein:

"The crude way to look at the last few years of presidential elections is that, in general, Republicans win when foreign threats are most salient, and Democrats win when the focus is on domestic issues. Of the last four presidential elections, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly one time: The election that came three years after 9/11, one year after the invasion of Iraq, and a few days after bin Laden released another taped threat. Democrats won the other three. All of which is to say, flip-flopping may have helped explain why Kerry lost, but it's just not that powerful a charge. People give too much credit to the campaigns politicians run and not enough credit to the conditions in which they run. If Bush had called Kerry a flip-flopper exactly as many times, but there was no bin-Laden tape, or economic growth was a half point worse, Kerry would have won, and the charges he levied -- that Bush was out of touch and dim -- would've been considered brilliantly effective political attacks."

LEST WE FORGET: Touche!

From Overheard in New York:

Little guy to big guy wearing fur hat: "You know, wearing fur is murder."
Big guy wearing fur hat: "So is me pushing you off the train."

-- A Train

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

July 30, 2008

7/30: Out Of Context?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Barack Obama for reportedly telling House members, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Righty bloggers see Obama's statement as evidence that he is "an individual of staggering arrogance". A Dem who attended the meeting complains that Obama's remarks are being taken out of context:

"[Obama's] entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol...'"

Some conservative bloggers claim that the additional context doesn't make Obama's words any less problematic. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are defending Obama's remarks. Matthew Yglesias complains: "For hours the press and the GOP have been in a frenzy about Obama's arrogance. Because he tried to say something humble about why he was greeted by hundreds of thousands of people when he gave a speech."

OBAMA: The Arrogance!

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after The Washington Post reported that the IL senator told House members, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Righty bloggers are also linking to Dana Milbank column, in which he portrays Obama's remark as evidence that Obama is becoming "presumptuous":

• NRO's Peter Wehner: "Any man who believes he is 'the moment that the world is waiting for' and views himself as the symbol of the possibility and best traditions of America is an individual of staggering arrogance. That is doubly so when, like Obama, you have achieved nothing so far in your life -- in terms of scholarship or literature, legislation, acts of valor, self-sacrifice, or anything else -- that qualifies you to view yourself in quasi-Messianic terms."
• RedState's Ben Domenech: "Exult! Make a joyful noise! Dance in the streets with garlands of the finest flowers! Sing glorious hymns of praise to the firmament above! Behold -- the Son of Man comes, riding upon a golden ass! The weight of His glory is a heavy burden, indeed -- but He will bear it, yes, for you and for me."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Like Dr. Frankenstein, the mainstream media is getting nervous about the monster they have created. [...] They tingled, they gaped, they pumped, they spun, they tore down his primary opponent and they debased themselves by leaving their objectivity home and muting their demands for decent access to the candidate and reasonable disclosure of information. So if the Creature is now out of control and the subject of ridicule and even mocking...then they might examine the coverage they have afforded him these many months. Once can hardly blame the Great One for believing his press clippings."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Looks like the media is catching on to Obama's arrogance complex, no?"

Dems who attended the meeting complained that The Washington Post had taken Obama's statement out of context. One Dem "who was in the room" told Time's Mark Halperin:

"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol...'"

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett doesn't think the additional context makes Obama's remarks any less problematic: "What Obama said, and what the staffer and congressman confirm, is that in Obama's view, the world has selected Obama as a repository for its hope and dreams. I'm not sure how this shows less ego than the unsupported straw man argument, but there it is anyway. [...] Being surrounded by adoring sycophants for months on end has apparently warped Obama's perspective. The candidate obviously believes everyone is as wrapped up in Barack Obama as He is."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Yglesias defends Obama's remarks: "One could dispute [Obama']s theory, but it's not a particularly remarkable thing to say. You have a candidate who was greeted enthusiastically in Europe saying that the enthusiasm was about something larger than him -- about the United States and about the values Barack Obama and millions of other Americans cherish and hope will once again govern the country. But Dana Millbank wanted to write an article about how 'Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.' [...] And now for hours the press and the GOP have been in a frenzy about Obama's arrogance. Because he tried to say something humble about why he was greeting by hundreds of thousands of people when he gave a speech."

Atrios: "MSNBC just informed me that the highly misleading clipped quote might feed the idea that Obama is 'presumptuous' despite being, you know, a highly misleading clipped quote...Craig Crawford: 'Even if it's not true...' Please kill me."

OBAMA II: It's Too Late To Apologize

Conservative bloggers are slamming Obama for making the following remarks at a convention for minority journalists:

"'I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,' [Obama] said.

'I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.'"

• NRO's Mark Krikorian: "Obama sayeth 'the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.' Deeds? Like, say, Gettysburg? Antietam? The Wilderness? Shiloh? Chancellorsville? Spotsylvania?"
• Right Wing News' McQ: "Our 'tragic history'? A tragic history, in my estimation, would be one that still exists now as it did then. Someone, anyone, tell me -- Would you consider the steps made to remedy those situations of our 'tragic past' an 'acknowledgment' of them that has been done through 'deeds'? Civil war, Constitutional amendments, laws, set-asides, preferences, enforcement, cultural change, etc. Yet here again, these are deemed insufficient. Instead, 'reparations' and 'deeds' are mentioned in the same breath by a supposedly 'post-racial' candidate for President of the United States. And what that simply means is another in a long line of redistributionist schemes based in historical wrongs and the premise they've not been addressed. This. Has. Got. To. Stop."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama's understanding of American history -- his need to deplore trumps any instinct to elevate and celebrate every time -- frames the choice between McCain and Obama. A McCain presidency would be grounded on the firm conviction of American greatness and exceptionalism, as well as the uniqueness of the American mission in the world. Obama's would be built on the 'mature' understanding of America's many past sins, its enormous greed and grasping, its unfair use of vast quantities of resources and its need to respect world opinion and world institutions even when those opinions and institutions are at cross-purposes with American national interests."
• RedState's Haystack: "It may not be November yet, but our boy Barry isn't wasting any time acting as if here were already our next President and he's out there doing the Lord's work of healing America. After all, as a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions it makes perfect sense for Obamident Barry to start off with apologies and promises of reparations to any and all that may have ever suffered at the hands of our sad and tragic past transgressions as a Nation."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Kick The Kaine

Yesterday we reported that Markos Moulitsas considers VA Gov. Tim Kaine (along with KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and MO Sen. Claire McCaskill) an "excellent choice" for VP. However, many liberal bloggers are critical of Kaine's record on social issues:

• Melissa McEwan: "I am as decidedly unthrilled as I am (unfortunately) totally unsurprised that the Obama campaign is even considering putting a gay-baiting DINO war hawk whose personal 'views on abortion are roughly in line with those of George W. Bush' on the ticket."
• TAPPED's Dylan Matthews: "Kaine's social views and his stance on Iraq are pretty problematic. Just as his Catholic views led him to oppose the death penalty, so too do they lead him to oppose abortion rights. [...] His record on gay rights isn't much better. He opposes civil unions, and while he claimed to oppose the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that passed last year, he declined to veto legislation placing it on the ballot. Perhaps worst of all, in the 2005 governor's race his campaign mocked [GOP nominee Jerry] Kilgore's effeminate voice. [...] It'd be one thing for Obama to choose an anti-choice running mate; picking an anti-choice gay-baiter is even worse."
• Kathy G.: "[Kaine] would be a piss-poor choice to be Barack Obama's running mate. [...] For one thing, I really, really don't want to see anyone on the ticket who is less than 100% committed to choice. [...] In addition, Kaine is on the record as strongly supporting a ban on so-called 'partial birth abortions' and strongly favoring government funding for that anti-scientific boondoggle known as 'abstinence-only' sex education. And how much of an anti-choice wingnut do you have to be to oppose state funding for stem cell research? [...] But wait -- there's even more bad news. Kaine ran a gay-baiting campaign for governor and is awful on GLBT issues. [...] And not only did he support the Iraq War, but he was super-hawkish about it as well."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Kaine is a very bad choice for VP. He's done nothing as Governor except turn a functional state government into a partisan cesspool of giveaways to the rich and anger everyone in the process. And on national positions, the only thing he brings to the table is that he can play the [Joe] Lieberman as VP role again. And sequels usually suck, especially if the original was bad."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[Choosing Kaine would] signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive. As such, it would be difficult to muster up enthusiasm to work for the ticket. By contrast, Obama / Sebelius would be fine, and Obama / [Chris] Dodd would be exciting. If these are the final three choices, and I think there are good indications that they are the final three choices, I really hope that Obama doesn't go with Kaine."

Yglesias disputes Bowers' contention that choosing Kaine would "signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive": "This seems to me to be reading way too much into the VP selection. Ronald Reagan's selection of George H.W. Bush much more presaged Bush becoming a conservative than Reagan becoming a moderate. The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the [Bill] Clinton-[Al] Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be, and that'll still be the case no matter who Obama picks."

Stoller responds to Yglesias: "Matthew Yglesias thinks we're overreaching by imputing intentions to Obama based on his VP pick. I don't think that's true for three reasons. One, Obama has consistently said he's picking a VP candidate based on how that candidate will help him govern. Two, we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President. The FISA example...shows that Obama thinks nothing of breaking promises to liberals. Three, even if he follows through on the promises he hasn't broken, I don't see how his overall policy platform is substantially to the left of the Clinton/Gore administration. As a brief but significant example, in place of Clinton/Gore's 'peace dividend', or a cut in military spending, Obama has promised to grow the size of the military."

MCCAIN: He Doesn't Speak For Himself?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after the presumptive GOP nominee contradicted his own earlier statements -- as well as a statement by his campaign spokesman -- when he said that he would consider raising payroll taxes to fix Social Security. Think Progress' Ali Frick writes:

"On Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about his plans to fix Social Security. McCain said repeatedly that 'everything has to be on the table' regarding possible reforms -- including a payroll tax increase. [...] The comments drew a 'sharp rebuke' from the Club for Growth, who wrote McCain a letter calling the comments 'shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances.' In fact, just last year McCain explicitly told the National Review that he refused to consider any sort of tax increase. He also told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, 'No new taxes.' Trying to stymie the conservative blow-back over his boss's recent comments, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds insisted to Fox News this morning that the senator hadn't really been speaking for the campaign."

• Yglesias: "[McCain's] campaign just seems to be off the rails, and unable to decide what McCain's stance is on various topics. For example, McCain and McCain's spokesman can't agree on whether or not increasing the payroll tax cap should be 'on the table' in terms of changing Social Security. It's a point McCain has gone back-and-forth on many, many times over the course of the campaign. [...] Maybe with the Olympics coming up and the expected attendant lull in campaign coverage, Team McCain can slow down and huddle for a couple of weeks in Arizona to just go down the checklist and figure out where they stand on these issues. Hold some conference calls. Something."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "John McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama over taxes and said that he will not raise taxes under any circumstances -- except to fix Social Security apparently. That's what he said on ABC's This Week. [...] Now he's saying he won't raise taxes. It's hard to keep up."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "This is just getting embarrassing. Is McCain running for president of the United States or is he trying out for a part in some high-concept wacky political comedy? He needs to make up his mind."

MEDIA CRITICISM: In The Tank For McCain?

Two weeks ago we noted that liberal bloggers were accusing Ron Fournier, the Associated Press' Washington bureau chief, of pro-GOP bias. The criticism of Fournier escalated when TPM Muckraker revealed that Fournier sent Karl Rove an email in 2004 in which he told Rove to "keep up the fight." Now liberal bloggers are criticizing Fournier once again following a Politico article revealing that Fournier spoke with several of McCain's top aides about joining the AZ senator's presidential campaign in October 2006 (Fournier eventually declined the offer):

• Jed Lewison: "I guess he ultimately decided he could do more good from the AP than inside the campaign."
• dday: "Turns out Ron Fournier, now heading the Washington bureau of the AP right into ruin, had another job offer on the table prior to that. [...] Why would he take it? He gets the free Dunkin' Donuts for McCain anyway, which I assume would have been part of his job description. Fournier is clearly a partisan cheerleader ('Keep up the fight!') masquerading as a journalist."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Just read Fournier's stuff like he's in a senior advisory role to the McCain campaign. Then, it will makes sense."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Maybe he's on retainer?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Fournier] would fit right in with the Rove proteges at the McCain campaign."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "It comes as no surprise that the AP's coverage of Obama has been full of slanted pontificating as Fournier pushes not just straight reporting, but comments and analysis -- so much of it amazingly unfair and non-analytical about Obama."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "That Fournier would consider a role with the McCain campaign is not especially surprising; his political leanings have been increasingly apparent of late. [...] But Fournier is the DC bureau chief of the Associated Press. He's chiefly responsible for directing the AP's coverage of the presidential campaign. And yet, Fournier's objectivity is hardly above reproach -- he considered an offer to work for one of the two candidates. [...] Did it not occur to the Associated Press that this might raise questions about the objectivity of the wire service's coverage?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Fournier's Accountability Journalism

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer offers some interesting thoughts on the news that the AP's Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier considered taking "a senior advisory role" in the McCain campaign in 2006:

"The point is -- none of this should have mattered. Having political beliefs or sympathies shouldn't affect the way a journalist does their job, and this article wouldn't even have been written if the AP didn't have reporters writing stuff like this. Some might see this as just another example of why 'objectivity' in journalism is a myth, but for some reason, that's an argument I find a great deal more compelling with a network or a newspaper. There's something disconcerting about bias in wire services, since many papers may rely on them entirely for their national affairs or international coverage. There's also something bizarre about Fournier's brand of 'accountability journalism', which aims to be opinionated but essentially relies on the credibility of the AP's past, non-opinionated work for any sense of authority, the reputation of wire reporters as 'straight-shooters'. In other words, the appeal of AP reporters giving their opinions is premised on the myth that wire reporters can't possibly have strong ideological opinions."

LEST WE FORGET: Another Title For The Gators

Radar's Neel Shah:

"Congratulations, University of Florida students! You guys have finally funneled enough beers and set enough pieces of dorm furniture on fire while celebrating NCAA championships to earn the title of No. 1 party school in America! The honor, courtesy of the Princeton Review's annual survey, comes after years of hard work -- the Gators had cracked the top 20 each of the past 15 years, but never finished first until this year. A spokesperson for the university defended the school, noting that the typical incoming freshman has a 4.1 weighted GPA and got a 1300 on the SATs, though high school academic diligence may not transfer at the university level: Florida also finished first in the category of 'students who studied the least.' Says one student: 'With a lot of people on campus, fun things happen.' The Gators are a perceptive batch!

For the 11th straight year, Brigham Young, the Mormon school where no one drinks, smokes, does drug, has sex, or partakes in any behavior otherwise associated with the college demographic, topped the Review's 'Stone-Cold Sober Schools' list."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:16 PM

July 29, 2008

7/29: Yes We Kaine?

Like the national press, the political blogosphere is buzzing about potential running mates for Barack Obama. Now that various news organizations are reporting that VA Gov. Tim Kaine is high on Obama's VP shortlist, the netroots are turning their attention to the ex-Richmond mayor. While Markos Moulitsas considers Kaine (along with KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and MO Sen. Claire McCaskill) an "excellent choice," other bloggers are less keen on him. That said, Kaine doesn't appear to draw the same netroots opposition that other VP candidates (such as ex-GA Sen. Sam Nunn, NE Sen. Chuck Hagel, and VA Sen. Jim Webb) have drawn.

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: The Kos Criteria

Daily Kos' Moulitsas offers his thoughts on Obama's running mate possibilities: "Obama is running as an outsider agent of change. His best veep pick would be someone who reinforces that message. Hillary [Clinton] clearly doesn't qualify, nor does anyone in the Senate that was elected earlier than 2004. Any governor fits the bill because they're all, by definition, outside of DC and thus 'outsiders' for purposes of messaging. Of the most recently elected senators, McCaskill completely fits the bill -- a great surrogate for Obama and a fresh face in politics. [...] Of the governors, the two names heard most often are Kansas' Kathleen Sebelius and Virginia's Tim Kaine. Both would be excellent choices -- fresh-faced reformers with the ability to deliver results while operating in Red states with GOP-controlled legislatures. They both complement Obama's message perfectly, and clearly have a good rapport with Barack. Chemistry is important."

Moulitsas continues: "Bill Clinton had it right, actually -- he bucked conventional wisdom ('must choose a northerner to "balance out" the ticket') and chose another southern Dem (Al Gore) who reinforced his core message -- that he was a 'new' kind of Democrat different from those northern urban elites. And they looked great together. It's chemistry, or lack of it, that seems to have doomed Bill Richardson's chances, for better or for worse. And we really, really don't want to pick someone who plugs a supposed gap in Obama's armor. You pick Wes Clark, and people won't see 'phew, national security is covered!'. Nope, they'll see, 'Obama is trying to compensate for his lack of national security creds!' And whether it's Sam Nunn, or Joe Biden, or anyone else who supposedly patches up a weakness, the end result would be what Gore had to endure in 2000 -- 'He picked Joe Lieberman to compensate for Gore's "Bill Clinton" problem.'"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat critiques Moulitsas' post: "What Kos seems to forget is Al Gore was an experienced Washington legislator, 8 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate, with his own Presidential run in 1988 under his belt, when Bill Clinton tapped him for VP. To compare Al Gore in 1992 to Claire McCaskill, a first term Senator, or Tim Kaine, a first term Governor, is simply ridiculous. Sure, the chemistry was important. Sure, the 'new' Democrat message was reinforced. But most importantly, no one thought Al Gore was not qualified to be President."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: Raising Kaine

Now that Kaine is rumored to be on Obama's VP shortlist, liberal bloggers are turning their attention to the VA governor:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver examines Kaine's pluses and minuses: "Works well with Obama? Check. Speaks fluent Spanish? Check. But inexperienced on the national stage? Also a check. Not a particularly distinguished track record as governor? Check. I think, however, that both Kaine's greatest asset and his greatest liability may have been missed. The liability, as I have argued before, is that he may not be of much help to Obama in Virginia. [...] The home state VP bounce is small enough to begin with that for a candidate who has trouble hitting 50 percent favorability in his home state, it may be non-existent. [...] On the other hand, the Obama campaign is smart enough to know that a VP's ability to carry his home state is a relatively minor factor in the grand scheme of things. The more important question is what sort of brand space he would come to occupy once introduced to the nation at large (to whom Kaine is a literal unknown). On that front, the news is a little better for Kaine and Obama. [...Kaine]'s not a rock star. He's an average-looking guy, which is to say, for a politician, he has below-average looks. [...] Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing. As Jay Cost ably argues, this has the potential to detract significantly from Obama's core narrative. Kaine would bring humility and good humor to the ticket, and would go some way toward hedging that risk. He would not be a VP designed to win over converts, so much as to shore up some of Obama's weak and wavering support."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong prefers Kaine over Sebelius and IN Sen. Evan Bayh: "Sebelius, Kaine, or Bayh. Those are the three names that are being settled upon as CW chatter. Bayh is clearly the most 'political' choice, a Washington Senator, but from a state that Obama could win. Sebelius and Kaine are the ones whom backed Obama, and are more of a companion/outsider choice. [...] I'd hope he goes with Kaine, who could help in VA, out of these three."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller is not a fan of Kaine: "Tim Kaine is on Obama's VP short list. He signed an estate tax repeal [that ex-VA Gov.] Mark Warner vetoed and tried to push through a sales tax hike. He's also horrible on global warming and coal, oh, and he's pro-life. Awesome."
• Ezra Klein doesn't think Obama will choose Kaine: "Given that Obama's great weakness is inexperience, I have trouble imagining him choosing a first-term governor who's only served three years. Kaine might be this year's [Dick] Gephardt: The guy who gets the rumors, but not the nomination."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: Good N' Pawlenty

NRO's Jim Geraghty generated some chatter in the conservative blogosphere when he passed along a rumor that MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty is John McCain's choice for VP:

"A source tells me that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is John McCain's choice, and that the announcement is coming very soon. But I checked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, who Pawlenty is scheduled to address Wednesday at 11:30. As far as they know, his speech is still on. So I urge skepticism. Maybe Pawlenty is the choice, and it's coming later. Or perhaps this was just an overreaction to the news that Pawlenty is going to Iowa Saturday for the state Republican party."

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer is not a Pawlenty fan: "Please say it ain't so. [Pawlenty's] awful on-air joke about his wife not having sex with him earlier this year shows he is not ready for prime time. His global warming advocacy was so extreme earlier this year that it turned off fellow GOP governors, quite seriously. His TV appearances have shown him to come across as without substance and without memorability. And his statement two years ago that the era of small government is over, and that government needs to be more aggressive and proactive, is a total deal-killer for the limited-government people who STILL remain the heart and soul of the heartland GOP and of the conservative movement. Again, please say it ain't so."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit is unenthusiastic about Pawlenty: "His working-class pedigree is all to the good, but between the lack of name recognition and the 'boring old Republican white guy' effect, I'm underwhelmed. He doesn't even have serious religious cred to reassure antsy evangelicals. Let's hope the report's wrong, although given the general savviness of McCain's campaign these days, it probably isn't."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey has a more positive view of Pawlenty: "Well, I live in Pawlenty's state and have met him on a couple of occasions, and this pick would not make me too glum at all. Pawlenty has a good center-right track record, especially on holding the line on taxes with a hostile Legislature. He demonstrated real leadership during the bridge collapse and its aftermath, keeping the gas-tax-increase advocates at bay and convincing the rest of the state to ignore them. He's also pro-life, and a humble but telegenic man who will inject a little vigor into the campaign. [...] Pawlenty has a strong base of personal and political support in Minnesota and the upper Midwest, and he could change the calculus in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He also helps defend the Midwest if Obama picks Sebelius, Gephardt, or Hagel. Plus, Pawlenty never wavered in his support for McCain even when times got tough. McCain values that kind of loyalty. It's not a bad quality to have on the ticket."

In other veepstakes news, Townhall's Matt Lewis recently posted "The Conservative Guide to VP Picks" in order to "let the McCain folks know how conservatives will likely receive certain picks":

• Gov. Bobby Jindal -- He would excite conservatives.
• Gov. Sarah Palin -- She would excite conservatives.
• Gov. Mark Sanford -- Conservatives would appreciate this pick.
• Former Gov. Mitt Romney -- Most conservatives would appreciate this pick.
• Sen. John Thune -- Many conservatives would be excited by this pick. He would certainly not be offensive to conservatives.
• Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- Acceptable, but not exciting.
• Gov. Charlie Crist -- Barely acceptable. Certainly not exciting to conservatives.
• Former Gov. Tom Ridge -- Unacceptable. Deal-breaker.

MCCAIN: Do Your Job, Media!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the major news organizations for describing McCain's latest attack ad without mentioning that the ad's most inflammatory charge -- that Obama cancelled a scheduled visit with U.S. troops in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras" -- is false. TPM's Greg Sargent writes:

"I've just done a lap through the coverage by the big news orgs of the ad John McCain put out this weekend attacking Barack Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany. CNN has a piece here, The New York Times has one here, The Washington Post has write-ups here and here, and the Associated Press has one here. The stories did dutifully note the Obama camp's push-back against the ad. But not a single one of these reports told you that the ad is false."

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "As compiled by Talking Points Memo, we see that most major news outlets failed to call out the false premise of McCain's ad attacking Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany. Presenting a lie and the truth as two sides of an argument is not journalism. It's stenography."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's fine that the reporters sought out comment from the Obama campaign, but that's the bare minimum. It creates a typical he-said/he-said story that pretends there are no objective truths at issue here. McCain launches an attack; Obama says the attack is false. Maybe reporters could help cut through the rhetoric and let voters know the truth? [...] The McCain campaign is airing an intentionally deceptive ad, hoping that a) voters won't know the truth and can be easily misled; and b) the media won't raise a fuss about the campaign lying to the public. By refusing to do even the most basic level of fact checking, news outlets are encouraging the McCain campaign to engage in its most cynical and dishonorable tactics."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Does anyone remember [McCain's] blatant lie in the primary that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal? McCain hammered Romney incessantly and Romney wasn't ready for it, but it was nothing short of a lie. And now McCain is lying again in his new attack ad against Barack Obama claiming that the reason Barack didn't visit wounded soldiers in Germany was that he wasn't allowed to take 'cameras.' [...] Why is no one calling McCain out for being the liar that he is? Instead people are expressing great disappointment that he's not fulfilling his promise to run an 'honorable' campaign instead of admitting that his claim to run an issues-based campaign in the first place was just another one of McCain's blatant lies."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Just a quick update on the 'respectful campaign' being run by St. John McCain. This all happened in the last week: (1.) Released a ridiculous ad claiming Obama was responsible for high gas prices; (2.) Stated on several occasions that Obama would commit treason in order to win an election; (3.) Released another commercial blatantly lying about Obama, accusing him of ignoring the troops. [...] You might begin to wonder why the media still pretends that McCain is different, and not just another peddler of Rovian filth. Well, there is a reason McCain still gets treated as if he is actually running a 'respectful' campaign. The media is in the bag for him."

MCCAIN II: Thank You, Andrea

Liberal bloggers are praising NBC's Andrea Mitchell for declaring that McCain's attack ad is "literally not true":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[Mitchell] was there in Afghanistan with Obama. She personally knows that McCain's ad is a lie. So what did she do? She went public and told us what she knew. She didn't play the he-said-she-said garbage that far too many Washington journalists enjoy, nor did she regurgitate a lie she knew to be untrue. She called McCain on his lie because she had personal facts that were relevant. This is what we keep asking the media to do. Be fair. Tell us what you know. Don't just repeat the other guy's lies when you know them to be false. Mitchell did a great job here, she did HER job here, and we thank her for it."
• Sargent: "MSNBC does the impossible, pointing out that the McCain attack ad's claim that Obama canceled the visit to the troops because he couldn't bring 'the cameras' is false. [...] This is rather relevant info, to put it mildly, and it's unclear why it's missing from most of the other reporting about this ad."
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "It doesn't take affection, or leg-tingles, to do what Andrea Mitchell did today (via Jed Report), which is to take John McCain's despicable 'Troops' ad and demonstrate what a high-toned piece of gutter fraudulence it is. Displaying nothing more than a studied neutrality in tone, and well-armed with the facts that she herself obtained while overseas with both the CODEL and the Obama campaign, Mitchell was a leader in the field of not letting lying dogs sleep, terming the ad 'literally not true,' and confidently summing up the ad as 'inexplicable.' [...] This whole episode should be sufficient to demonstrate that a single reporter committed to doing a good job is worth a thousand sycophants."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "I don't often praise Andrea Mitchell, but credit where credit is due."

MCCAIN III: Apparently, Some Flip-Flops Do Pay Off

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent Washington Post article revealing that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to McCain "rose dramatically" after the AZ senator reversed his position on offshore drilling:

"Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May."

• BarbinMD: "McCain & Offshore Drilling...the Payoff."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "So much for the 'mavericky' persona. First, it was the Freudian slip of his 'oil executives' tongue on off-shore drilling. Now? We see what's been greasing up more than just the 'Straight Talk' bus. [...] So, Sen. McCain, how about some real straight talk -- not just the kind you paint in large letters on your bus, but some real honesty about what all that money is buying from you? Because all those flip-flops on energy policy are significant. Smells awfully oily to me."

MCCAIN IV: Shame-onomics

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after he had the following exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos after the latter challenged his gas tax holiday proposal:

Stephanopoulos: "Not a single economist in the country said [a gas tax holiday would] work."
McCain: "Yes. And there's no economist in the country that knows very well the low-income American who drives the furthest, in the oldest automobile, that sometimes can't even afford to go to work."
Stephanopoulos: "But they all say that...the oil companies, the gas companies are going to absorb...any reduction."
McCain: "...they say that. But one, it didn't happen before, and two, we wouldn't let it happen. We wouldn't let it -- Americans wouldn't let them absorb that."
Stephanopoulos: "How would you prevent that?"
McCain: "We would make them shamed into it. We, of course, know how to -- American public opinion. And we would penalize them, if necessary. But they wouldn't. They would pass it on."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Yes, that's right, McCain will combine a tax cut with a program to shame oil companies into cutting prices. [...] McCain's total non-response to this critique of one of the main elements of his energy policy is really staggering."
• Ezra Klein: "So McCain's argument here is that the poor in this country need serious help, and so we're going to subsidize oil companies and try to leverage public opinion to shame them to pass some of those subsidies back to consumers in the form of price cuts at the pump. To call this a bank shot insults bank shots everywhere."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "John McCain is going to prevent oil companies from pocketing the proceeds of his gas tax holiday by publicly shaming them into passing the savings along to consumers? You betcha. I guess he came up with that idea because it's worked so well with other huge industrial corporations in the past."

MCCAIN V: Please Make This An Issue, John!

Conservative bloggers are pleased that McCain has endorsed a ballot initiative that would ban affirmative action programs in AZ, even though McCain criticized similar initiatives in the past. Righty bloggers are urging McCain to make this into a campaign issue:

• NRO's Roger Clegg: "Kudos to John McCain! This is a solid, important commitment by him to the principle of E pluribus unum, and Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives, should applaud him. As for Barack Obama: This is a critical moment in his campaign. Is he a candidate of change who will transcend race and bring us all together, rejecting divisive policies he knows in his heart are outdated and irrelevant -- or just another Democratic pol who lacks the courage to stand up to powerful but aging interests in his own party, which remain hopelessly infatuated with identity politics and insist on perpetuating a set of policies that have always been unfair and divisive and are now outmoded to boot?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I suspect this is a fight Obama wants no part -- for it is a losing one and resurrects the issue of just how post-racial a candidate he is. As for McCain, if this is where he's come down as a matter of policy he should make sure voters understand the stark difference between him and his opponent. And if not, he should clarify his position before opponents of the current system get their hopes up."
• The Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland: "McCain's decision to support the Arizona civil rights initiative, on the ballot on Election Day this fall, means that a critical campaign issue is now in play. [...] Having come out for the Arizona initiative, McCain can't allow himself to be so intimidated by Democratic attacks (note Obama has already accused McCain of taking a position that's 'divisive') that he fails to argue in its behalf -- that he quits on it. Which is, of course, exactly what Obama and his aides would like to see McCain do. McCain's advisers usefully could carve out some time -- right now -- to brief McCain on the ins and outs of this issue. And to schedule a major speech in which he could, without interruption, make the case for colorblind government in Arizona -- and in other states and at the federal level, too."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff thinks McCain should keep this issue alive but not overemphasize it: "McCain is on the popular side here, and it's not even close. The very 'blue' states of California, Washington, and Michigan have all passed this resolution by sizeable majorities. [...] McCain, though, should not over-emphasize this issue. For one thing, it's not central to his thinking and to pretend otherwise might undermine his authenticity, perhaps his most valuable asset. For another, stridency on this issue might make McCain seem divisive, to use Obama's term. Independent and swing voters overwhelmingly side with McCain over Obama on this issue, but probably won't appreciate being bludgeoned with it especially given Obama's race. Though President [George W.] Bush's squishiness on racial preferences bothered me greatly, I think it helped him politically because it softened his edges. Unlike Bush, McCain's moderate credentials are well-established, so he doesn't need to be squishy, just not overly aggressive. But McCain shouldn't let the matter die either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Preserving The Sanctity Of Marriage

Yglesias proposes a ban on fourth marriages:

"I was thinking recently that if you really wanted to do something to shore up the sanctity of marriage then rather than ban gay marriages you ought to ban, say, fourth marriages. It's one thing to say that people who make a mistake ought to get a second chance, but serial nuptuals really do make a mockery of the institution's basic premises in a way that same-sex couples don't. Maybe some people just need to admit to themselves that they have no business making promises of life-long commitment. Initially, I wanted to ban third marriages, but it seems worth watering the proposal down in order to enhance political feasibility and secure access to the much-vaunted 'three strikes and you're out' catchphrase."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat goes even further:

"In the interests of pushing the envelope, I'll take the the anti-third marriage position -- ticking off Rush Limbaugh yet again, no doubt -- thereby making Matt's 'three strikes and you're out' approach the moderate, bipartisan position on the question. Now all we need is for David Broder to write a column endorsing it..."

LEST WE FORGET: Really-Loud-Whistle Guy Takes Every Opportunity To Whistle Loudly

From The Onion:

"AUSTIN, TX -- Whether he's making his approval known during sporting events and rock concerts, or simply in a situation that requires him to get the attention of one or more persons, 33-year-old loud whistler Jim Burston never misses an occasion to insert his pinkies into his mouth and whistle loudly, sources reported Monday. 'I'm not sure it was necessary to whistle like that to gather everyone in the breakroom for cupcakes,' said coworker Robert Lindel, referring to a recent incident in which Burston whistled piercingly for more than 10 seconds until everyone in his office had assembled for a workplace birthday celebration. 'He could have just sent an e-mail.' According to witnesses, Burston last whistled loudly at the conclusion of a bris, but was quickly drowned out by loud-air-horn guy Lucas Nesbaum, 32, a man known for frequently discharging an ear-shattering 345-decibel air horn."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:57 PM

July 28, 2008

7/28: Talkin' 'Bout Timetables

The netroots were buzzing this weekend after John McCain appeared to offer a qualified endorsement of a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. During his Friday interview on CNN's "The Situation Room," McCain said that the 16-month timetable endorsed by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki was "a pretty good timetable" as long as it was "based on conditions on the ground." Liberal bloggers immediately accused McCain of flip-flopping, since McCain has repeatedly blasted Barack Obama and others for supporting a timetable for withdrawal (or for merely using the word "timetable"). Liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's statement as a turning point in the race that eliminates one of the key differences between McCain and Obama. Josh Marshall declares: "We need to recognize that McCain has now abandoned virtually everything he's been campaigning on for the last year."

McCain isn't the only candidate being accused of altering his position on timetables, however. Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of backing away from his 16-month withdrawal proposal after he told Newsweek that his criteria for keeping residual troops in Iraq would be "entirely conditions-based." Allahpundit writes: "He and Maverick are almost mirror images on Iraq now: McCain thinks troop levels should depend on conditions but concedes that 16 months is a 'pretty good timetable' whereas Obama thinks 16 months is a pretty good timetable but concedes that, er, troop levels should depend on conditions."

MCCAIN: Now He Supports A Timetable?

Liberal bloggers were buzzing after McCain appeared to give a qualified endorsement to a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. On Friday, McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that a 16-month timetable was "a pretty good timetable" as long as it was "based on conditions on the ground":

Blitzer: "So why do you think [Maliki] said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?"
McCain: "He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should -- or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground."

Liberal bloggers don't understand how McCain can praise Maliki's 16-month timetable after having repeatedly blasted Obama's 16-month timetable:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "You're probably thinking, after all McCain has done to castigate Obama for pushing a timetable, he couldn't possibly have gone on CNN and supported a timetable himself. But, yes, he did."
• Atrios: "(1.) Maliki likes Obama's timeline. (2.) McCain likes Maliki's timeline. (3.) McCain thinks Obama's timeline will cause the destruction of America as we know it."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "There has been a lot of attention paid to John McCain's apparent flip-flop yesterday on timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and given his frequent attacks on Barack Obama's call for a 16 month timetable (or if you prefer, horizon), McCain's words were rather stunning."

Liberal bloggers think McCain's apparent shift on timelines is a big deal:

• TPM's Marshall: "...Over the span of a few weeks Sen. McCain has gone from predicting a decades long presence of American troops in Iraq and attacking any discussion of timetables for withdrawal to endorsing Maliki's push for a 16 month timetable and tying himself in knots trying to explain why what Maliki's endorsing is any different from Obama's. When confronted with Maliki's own words saying that he supports what Obama supports, McCain now falls back on that last redoubt of philanderers, asking the American people, 'Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?' For all the seismic shifts that have taken place over the last two weeks, we need to recognize that McCain has now abandoned virtually everything he's been campaigning on for the last year. There's really no more eloquent confirmation of that reality than the fact that McCain now appears determined to base his campaign on charges that Obama is unpatriotic and despises American soldiers."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Remember the first two weeks of July, when the 'big story' of the presidential campaign was that Barack Obama moved (or was about to move) towards John McCain's position on Iraq policy? The story was a fantasy, based on literally nothing, but it dominated the political discourse for weeks. [...] And the irony is, the entire story was backwards. Obama didn't move towards McCain; McCain has moved towards Obama."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "Let me make sure I understand. The reason to vote for McCain is because he has more foreign policy know-how than Obama, right? I mean, he's admitted that he doesn't know anything about the economy so foreign affairs is obviously where he's making his case. And on the key foreign policy issue of the day he's just changed to supporting Obama's plan, therefore admitting it's better. So, what, exactly, is the case for voting for McCain? Seriously, not snarkily, what is the case?"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama's overseas trip changed McCain's position on Iraq, thus entirely demolishing the 'move to the center' or 'flip flop' meme on Obama. Now, Obama looks like a leader, and McCain is a pandering, flip-flopping follower. [...] With the contradictory attacks and McCain flip-flops add[ing] up, this overseas trip really is checkmate for Obama. His trip will have a similar impact on the campaign as the swift boat attacks four years ago. This trip has removed the central pillar of McCain's argument to be President."

MCCAIN II: Stop Quoting Me Accurately!

When ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked McCain about his qualified endorsement of Maliki's 16-month timetable, McCain initially (and incorrectly) denied having used the word "timetable." Then he argued that "anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground":

Stephanopoulos: "You shouldn't have used the word timetable."
McCain: "I didn't use the word timetable. That I did -- if I did..."
Stephanopoulos: "Well, it's a pretty good timetable."
McCain: "Oh, well, look. Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good."

• Think Progress' Matt Corley: "Thrown off by the converging political consensus around a timetable for withdrawal, McCain can't seem to figure out what his position on Iraq is. First, he denied that the Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave on a timetable, then he said that Maliki had floated 'a pretty good timetable.' Defending his shifts today, he claimed, 'Anything sounds good to me.'"
• Sudbay: "Wow. One day after McCain said he thought sixteen months was a 'pretty good timetable' for withdrawing from Iraq, McCain claimed he never said the word 'timetable.' Seriously, McCain said to Stephanopoulos 'I didn't use the word timetable.' One day later. Is he for real?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Once again, John McCain has an unfortunate run-in with a straightforward effort to quote his words, and protests to George Stephanoupolous 'I didn't use the word "timetable"' when, in fact, he called Nuri al-Maliki's plans for Iraq 'a pretty good timetable' just days ago. Perhaps he meant to say 'general time horizon.'"

MCCAIN III: Playing In The Mud?

Liberal bloggers are blasting McCain for his campaign's latest attack ad against Obama, which accuses the presumptive Dem nominee of cancelling a scheduled visit with U.S. troops in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras":

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "The McCain campaign has this brutal new attack ad against Barack Obama, making the blatantly false charge that he doesn't care about the troops unless there are cameras around. [...] As we reported yesterday, the Pentagon told Obama that the issue here was not that he couldn't bring cameras, but that he only had campaign staff with him and not Senate staffers. And since the Pentagon didn't tell him this until he had already embarked on his trip, it was too late for him to do anything."
• Bowers: "Considering that the Pentagon told Obama he couldn't visit the troops in question, expect this to continue to be part of a wider Republican Noise Machine attack on Obama. This hissy fit will be the next Wesley Clark incident. That it is completely bullshit and coordinated with Republican controlled branches of government won't matter to most of the national press corps. Republican attacks are, somehow, news in and of themselves."
• BarbinMD: "McCain knows that Obama visited wounded troops while he was in Iraq, he knows that Obama has visited them at Walter Reed. He knows that the Obama cancelled the trip, honoring Pentagon regulations, to avoid making a visit that might seem political, saying that, 'the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not, or getting caught in the crossfire of the campaigns.' Yet knowing all this, and despite having said in April that McCain 'intentionally did not campaign on military property' because of the same Pentagon rules that Obama cited, McCain chose to put those people in the political crossfire and released a blatantly dishonest ad. Because McCain is willing to do or say anything to win."

Curiously, the ad uses footage of Obama playing basketball with U.S. troops in Kuwait at the same time that it accuses him of having "made time to go to the gym" but not to visit U.S. troops. This fact drew scorn from Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, who writes: "Really, this Jake Tapper headline says it all: New McCain Ad Bashes Obama for Not Visiting Troops Using Footage of Obama Visiting Troops. What a pathetic campaign."

MCCAIN IV: How Low Will He Go?

Liberal bloggers believe that McCain's recent behavior -- such as his latest attack ad and his allegation that Obama would rather "lose the war" than the presidential campaign -- indicate that McCain will do whatever it takes to win, even if it means playing dirty:

• Marshall: "McCain's new ad, which you can see here, is really beyond disgusting. At this point I think it's clear that honor really doesn't mean much to McCain. When things get tough, as it is in this election campaign, there's no limit to what he'll do."
• Benen: "It's nothing short of breathtaking to watch a once honorable man want the presidency so desperately, he's willing to flush his credibility and reputation down the toilet. John McCain's new TV ad marks a turning point, not only in this presidential campaign, but as a measurement of McCain's increasingly absent character."
• Yglesias: "[McCain] really wants to win the election, and he's willing to adopt pretty much any policy position and launch pretty much any dishonest attack on his opponent that he thinks will help him get there. If that means totally fictitious ads about Obama refusing to meet with soldiers, then fine."
• Sudbay: "McCain has a new, nasty attack ad running against Obama. It's based on pure falsehoods and a fake GOP created controversy -- and the sick thing is that McCain is now using wounded U.S. soldiers as political fodder. No surprise really -- except for McCain's media toadies who still think he's a stand-up guy. McCain has the [George W.] Bush/[Karl] Rove crew on board and this is standard procedure for them. McCain has got nothing to offer the American people so McCain is setting out to destroy Obama's reputation. He can't win -- he can only make Obama lose. "
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "McCain has often talked about his commitment to running a campaign based on issues. Yet now he is seizing on a meaningless non-event, exploiting American troops by casting them as victims in this petty squabble, and impugning an opponent who just addressed soldiers, international leaders and foreign citizens to outline a new course for America in the world. Obama's trip clearly made Obama look big. It took McCain's reaction to make McCain look so small."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I've never been a big John McCain fan. Even in the 2001-2004 era, when he was flirting with the left and opposing the most neanderthal elements in his own party, I didn't really warm to him. To me, he mostly seemed like a standard issue conservative who had discovered a good schtick during the 2000 campaign and was milking it for all it was worth, pandering to a press and pundit corps that, he had learned, routinely goes gaga over politicians who supposedly reject the shibboleths of both parties and simply speak their mind. [...] But now I'm watching him in 2008, his desperation for the presidency driving him to conduct a campaign that's carefully but relentlessly testing ever more contemptible depths of squalor in its attacks on Barack Obama ('he made time to go to the gym but cancelled a visit with wounded troops' is just the latest), and I wonder how he's going to feel when it's all over. Not only will he lose the election, but he's going to wake up one morning and realize that he abandoned his dignity in the process. That's obviously something that's important to him, and even for someone who was never much of a fan, it's kind of sad to watch him give it up so readily."

MCCAIN V: The View From The Right

Several conservative bloggers think McCain's attack ad against Obama is an effective one:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In recent days, John McCain has stepped up the pace of his attacks on Barack Obama. Now he's lost no time in going after Obama for canceling his visit to wounded soldiers in Germany, even though he had time to go to the gym and sightsee in Berlin. [...The ad is] brutal. In the end, this character-revealing blunder may be the only thing voters remember about Obama's international excursion."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "This seems almost deliberately provocative, as if Team McCain were daring Obama to complain that it's unfair -- at which point they'll turn around and accuse Obama of 'whining.' This is the 95 mph fastball I was trying to warn the rookie about."

Townhall's Matt Lewis isn't sure that McCain should be the person to deliver such a harsh attack on Obama: "Clearly, this is an issue that puts Obama on the defensive. There is no excuse for his decision to skip this visit. My only question is: Should McCain be the one making this attack, either in person -- or in campaign ads? In short, wouldn't this message be better delivered by a surrogate -- while McCain stays above the fray? ...And if you agree with that statement, does the lack of 527 groups (such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) this cycle ironically pose a serious problem for a candidate who already has a lot of obstacles to overcome?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit dislikes the ad: "[This ad is] a sequel of sorts to the 'Pump' ad from a few days ago suggesting that Obama uniquely was somehow to blame for soaring gas prices; anyone who believes that will, I guess, also believe that he'd torpedo a visit to see wounded troops because there'd be no flashbulbs popping in his face. Not only does that not fit the facts -- he left his pool reporters outside when he visited Walter Reed a few weeks ago, and as I noted last night, his spokesman says the plan at Landstuhl was to keep the press on the plane -- but even under the worst assumptions, it makes no sense. If you think (and I do not) that Obama's a sociopath who sees wounded soldiers as nothing but political chips to be played in an election card game, surely we can agree that he's nevertheless savvy enough to grasp how horribly bad it would look to have photographers with him on a hospital visit in the middle of a campaign. If there were pictures on the wires of him shaking hands with bedridden vets while media vultures crowded around for close-ups, conservatives would have ripped him for it properly and mercilessly and he knows it. Why not stick with the 'he went to the gym but not the hospital' point, which is at least factually correct? Why go here?"

OBAMA: What D'ya Mean, "Conditions-Based"?

McCain isn't the only candidate being accused of altering his position on timetables. Conservative bloggers see the following exchange from Obama's interview with Newsweek's Richard Wolffe as evidence that Obama is backing away from his 16-month timetable:

Obama: "Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective."
Wolffe: "You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?"
Obama: "I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now."

• NRO's Byron York: "So if the size of the final U.S. force needed in Iraq is conditions-based, and the timing of their stay in Iraq is conditions-based, and it is 'hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now,' why is Obama's current withdrawal timetable seemingly set in stone? What about it is not conditions-based? And if it's hard to see six months into the future, is it easier to see sixteen months ahead?"
• Lewis: "It's entirely conditions based??? Now maybe I'm wrong, but hasn't Obama been mocking this position for the last couple of years? [...] If Obama is attempting to co-opt McCain's message, or 'triangulate', he should realize that -- though he is a great speaker -- he is not as talented at stealing his opponents ideas as Bill Clinton once was. This sort of maneuver requires more than just audacity, it also requires finesse -- a quality Obama clearly does not possess."
• Allahpundit: "If Obama's top priority really is withdrawal, his Iraq policy should begin by setting the number of troops he's comfortable leaving in the field and then asking for recommendations on which missions are feasible given that number. The fact that he's going about it the other way, starting with the missions and then building any drawdown around them, is a decidedly McCain-esque (i.e. conditions-based, i.e. responsible) approach. He tweaked McCain this morning for having lately come around to so many of his own positions, but in light of this, he and Maverick are almost mirror images on Iraq now: McCain thinks troop levels should depend on conditions but concedes that 16 months is a 'pretty good timetable' whereas Obama thinks 16 months is a pretty good timetable but concedes that, er, troop levels should depend on conditions."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "The Obama 16-month withdrawal position continues to bounce between an ideological (anti-war) and conditional (national security) one. He wants to have it both ways, which we find confounding but he finds expedient. In my opinioon, McCain has not come closer to Obama's position. McCain's position, like Bush's, has always been a conditional one, based on circumstances/conditions not ideology. If leaving Iraq, in whole or part, in 16 months can be done without harming our national security (broadly defined), then neither McCain nor Bush would hold out for more time. Why would they?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Surge Helps...Democrats?

Ezra Klein:

"I think this is a pretty astute political analysis by (yes) Jonah Goldberg. Contrary to the media's assumptions, the better things are going in Iraq, the more it helps Democrats, because it relieves Americans of the belief that they have to stay in order to prevent massive bloodshed. As Goldberg writes, 'If [the war] were going worse, McCain's Churchillian rhetoric would match reality better. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, al Qaeda in Iraq almost totally routed and even Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama.'

That's basically right. The McCain strategy requires an odd 'sweet spot' to succeed: Iraq must be neither stable enough to make American withdrawal a conceivable possibility, nor bloody enough to make American retreat a public priority. In early-2005, the situation was bad enough that most Americans wanted to get the hell out whatever the cost. So Democrats won big in 2006 on a platform of withdrawal. In late-2008, it's good enough that most Americans want to...get the hell out. And I think it's entirely possible that, again, Democrats will win big on a platform of withdrawal. The difference is, now voters can endorse it with a clear conscience. Hell, the government of Iraq is even asking us to leave. McCain is trying to reshape the issue into a question of honor, but that doesn't make a lot of sense: There's nothing dishonorable about leaving when your job is done."

LEST WE FORGET: Can't Go Wrong With A Cheeseburger, Area Man Reports

From The Onion:

"SCOTTSVILLE, NY -- Unfamiliar with the menu at local restaurant Scully's and faced with the decision of what to order for lunch, diner Michael Cort, 25, made clear his belief Monday that one cannot go wrong with a cheeseburger. 'Pretty hard to screw up one of those guys,' said Cort, adding that he would be hard-pressed to remember an occasion on which he had consumed a less-than-satisfactory cheeseburger. 'It's a classic. Medium-rare cheeseburger, lettuce, tomato, some fries. Can't beat it.' Cort went on to advise those with him to 'steer clear' of the fish fry."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:49 PM

July 25, 2008

7/25: One Speech, Many Reactions

Like his 3/18 speech on race, Barack Obama's Berlin speech elicited polarized reactions in the blogosphere. Most liberal bloggers liked the speech, which they viewed as an eloquent articulation of liberal internationalism. However, it was less the content of the speech than the spectacle itself that impressed the netroots. Lefty bloggers were delighted to see an American politican received so warmly abroad, and several compared the cheering German crowd with the protests that typically greet President George W. Bush when he visits Europe.

Conservative bloggers split into two categories: those who hated the speech, and those who were simply bored by it. Bloggers in the former category accused Obama of "deprecat[ing] the United States on foreign soil for his own self-aggrandizing purposes" and declared that he makes them "ill". Bloggers in the latter category called the speech "pretty thin stuff" and compared it it to the '80s song "We Are The World".

OBAMA: They Like Him! They Really Like Him!

Liberal bloggers gave positive reviews to Obama's speech in Berlin, praising both its content and (especially) its symbolism:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "This is what 'proud to be an American' looks like in the 21st Century."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Realistically, it's not at all fair to keep expecting Barack Obama to deliver stirring, powerful addresses. And yet, he keeps managing to exceed expectations. [...] Obama didn't apologize for America, but he did explain his vision of what makes America great, in case our friends abroad had forgotten. [...] I was also struck by just how much ground Obama covered. Climate change, loose nukes, counter-terrorism, AIDS, poverty, free speech, religious liberty, Darfur, drug trafficking, rule of law -- it was all in there. I never know how people are going to react to speeches, but Obama's speech struck me as a home run."
• Open Left's Mimikatz: "Obama's speech was a terrific reminder that America can lead and be respected in the world if it once again has a President who is a true leader and someone whom the world can respect. [...] As one of the MSNBC commentators said, George Bush goes to Europe and draws huge crowds of protestors. What a treat to see an American leader speak to cheering, enthusiastic crowds again. And for the home folks, over and over [Obama] said how much he loves American and what it has traditionally stood for, the promise that drew his father from Kenya to the US. No one else could have done what he did. McCain seems so small at this moment, so 20th Century."
• Ezra Klein: "It's a good speech, though nothing particularly revolutionary. More important than the words is the image: What looks like hundreds of thousands of Berliners, gathered in a historic square, looking expectantly at an American politician for inspiration and leadership. Our candidates frequently assert that a restoration of America's global leadership will be high on their agenda. But American leadership cannot be passed by an act of Congress, or ratified by the electoral college. It is the rest of the world that must accept our role, and for it to be worth anything, they must do so willingly. The crowd assembled in Berlin today is certainly willing."
• BooMan: "The overall reaction that I had to watching Barack Obama's speech in Berlin this afternoon was mainly visceral. What he said made much less of an impression on me than the spectacle itself. The most remarkable part of it was that Barack Obama has not yet been elected president. And, yet, over a hundred thousand Germans turned out to hear what he had to say and they mobbed him after the speech just trying to get close enough to touch him."

OBAMA II: Stop Trying To Rain On Obama's Parade, Media!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the media's coverage of Obama's Berlin speech and his foreign tour in general -- particularly the media's repeated suggestions that Obama appears "presumptuous":

• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Today, the word of the day in the corporate press is... presumptuous. Used in a sentence: Senator Obama is being presumptuous during his trip -- acting all presidential and dignified. How dare he be presidential while running for, you know, president. Presumptuous. During the live CNN web feed of the Berlin address, an anchor used it to describe the event. [...] And Candy Crowley used it in her post-address analysis on CNN. [...] The reality is that positive coverage of any Democrat is limited and temporary for fear of networks and newspapers either being accused of liberal bias or being tossed out of the very serious barbeque loop. Regardless of whether the Democrat, in this case Senator Obama, is having a good day, it's somehow unethical to report on such good news for too long without deliberately concocting an antidote to appease the far-right."
• DemFromCT: "What does it mean to be arrogant? How about presumptuous? Do we think we can be a little more accurate when we throw the terms around? I ask after hearing the talking heads on cable TV blather about while everything about the Obama trip was successful, it 'borders' on being arrogant and presumptuous to be doing as well as he is doing abroad. Not that these were ever terms used by these folks for an event that really deserved the terms. Had they been free with the terms when George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier, or when John McCain said in 2003, referring to Iraq, 'Overall, I Believe Our Goals Have Been Met', they might have a point. But they didn't say that about Bush and McCain then and they won't say it about them now. It's not the narrative they are trying to set. They want to reserve the terms for the new guy, Obama, who hasn't paid his dues with them (at least in their own minds). These same folks are still rather annoyed that Obama doesn't seem to be a supplicant to the talking heads and pundits for their blessing and approval for him to look like a President. He seems to be doing it without them, and not all of them like it."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While [Obama's] speech will be treated as a major news event, we should expect the [DC media] to be dismissive. Further, expect them to justify this by claiming that the average voter is so utterly xenophobic, that the average voter would rather be hated by the world than embraced by it. What they won't say publicly is that they are starting to adjust their coverage in order to accommodate the attacks the McCain campaign that the Republican Noise Machine are making on their objectivity in this campaign. Let the kowtowing being."
• digby: "The pre-existing narrative of the 'liberal media' is still in very good working order, particularly among the media itself, and it will be put to use at some point to create hostile press for Obama. The only question is if it will happen before or after the election. This is why it's not a good long term policy to have a puerile media that covers politics like it's a Britney Spears stakeout. Even if, on a rare occasion, they temporarily swoon over a Democrat, the longstanding storyline of the 'liberal media' will be deployed and they will eventually overcompensate in the other direction."

OBAMA III: Is It Possible To Be Too Awesome?

Liberal bloggers were particularly critical of a statement made by CNN's Candy Crowley, who reportedly said that while Obama was "awesome" in his Berlin speech, Americans might conclude that he was "too awesome":

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Candy Crowley on CNN: Barack Obama was, indeed, awesome in his Berlin speech tonight, but watch out! Americans might decide he was a little too awesome. Yeesh. They just can't help themselves, can they?"
• dday: "Never in my life have I seen such a concern troll statement like this from a political reporter. [...] Obama has to be 'careful.' He mustn't be too presumptuous. He has to scale back with the soaring rhetoric and the inspiration and the winning, you see. It's decidedly unfair of him to run a decent campaign and soak up all the media attention at the expense of the guy who shows up at the German sausage restaurant on the same day as the Berlin speech."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis criticizes Chris Cillizza's suggestion that "thousands and thousands of cheering Germans may not play well stateside": "A million screaming Germans? What is that supposed to mean? And while, yes, Americans don't like fur-ners telling us how to vote, this would be the first time that anyone in the media, to my knowledge, has suggested that Obama's raucous world tour has the chance to hurt him. Sure, it's John McCain's line -- though, funny, McCain didn't mind doing his own world tour in March, and then again a few weeks ago. Maybe the Post would be happier if no one showed up for Obama, that would go over much better with the American people."

TPM's Josh Marshall defends Obama's decision to embark on this foreign trip: "After it became clear that Obama's trip through the Middle East was not only error-free but wildly successful (because of Maliki's gambit), there's been a third wave of press chatter and fretting to the effect that Obama's trip may now be too successful, that voters on the home front would rather have him stateside addressing their concerns than being feted by adoring Europeans. Joe Klein actually had a good post on this at Swampland yesterday. In the short term sense, I don't think watching Obama walk on water in Europe (or in whatever lakes or rivers they have available) will goose his poll numbers. It may even have a bit of the reverse effect. The key was banking a solid trip abroad, an audition for the head of state/commander-in-chief role, that he'll be able to refer back to (mostly implicitly, sometimes explicitly) during the tough weeks ahead in the fall. [...] Fundamentally this election is about hiring Obama, and overcoming the residual doubts (about his newness, youth, funny name, whatever) that are allowing John McCain even to stay in contention."

OBAMA IV: A Sickening Display

Many conservative bloggers were disgusted by Obama's Berlin speech:

• RedState's Haystack: "The Power Of Christ Compels You... Sorry -- a la 'The Exorcist' -- that's all that ran through my head as I listened to the Obamessiah give his sermon at a place that once enjoyed a similar spectacle when Hitler addressed his OWN zealots...and we all know how well THAT worked out, don't we? [...] Never before have I witnessed such reverence and grandeur for a kid who has no business being where he is, save for the love train he enjoys from the enabling media conglomerates and a lot of interesting personal connections.. This man makes me ill."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Absolutely stunning. A major party candidate to be President of the United States just spoke to a crowd of over 100,000 on foreign soil and tried to apologize for America. Barack Obama just couldn't bring himself to make an unqualified defense of America without criticizing the country for not having always lived up to its ideals. In order to curry favor with Europeans, he went after America for not being as tough on businesses in the fight against global warming as Germany, and in neutral terms said that the two superpowers came 'too close, too often' to starting a nuclear war -- as if America and the Soviets were equal threats to world peace. A friend of mine emailed during the speech to say 'I feel sick.' I'm sure he isn't the only American who feels that way this afternoon."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "In his sermon to the Germans, Barack Obama presents himself both as Barack the Baptist and the Obamessiah. Nevertheless, Americans naturally root for the underdog to prevail. For pride to take a fall. Don't we instinctively seek to puncture the grandiose pretensions of a blowhard? It seems to me that this is the question that Obama's speech elicits. And one more question. I wonder if Americans will appreciate Obama's deprecation of the United States on foreign soil for his own self-aggrandizing purposes. Surely one does not need to be a conservative Republican to recoil from this display."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Is it possible that many Americans will not warm to the idea of a candidate presuming to speak as an incumbent, and to do so to the world from Berlin? [...] Many conservative analysts praised the speech, but opinion elites should check with the independent voters of the industrial midwest where this election will be decided. Their dads fought and won W.W.II and they may not find enough pride in American greatness in Obama's speech."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Watching news footage of Barack's Berlin speech last night, it wasn't just his reference to being a 'citizen of the world' (a term beloved of the left) that irked me. Rather, it was the sheer presumptuousness of an American presidential candidate apologizing for his country. No doubt, if Barack is elected, we'll all get to do plenty of bowing and scraping before the likes of Germany and France -- with apologies to everyone simply for existing, using energy and (as he did yesterday) presuming to remove a dictator whom the entire world believed to have weapons of mass destruction and trying to bring a second stable, democratic government to the Middle East."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "I thought the speech was a giant failure. Obama loaded the speech with banal cliches in the hope that it would be a giant nothing-burger, and yet he still failed. To him, referring to oneself as a 'citizen of the word' may sound like the kind of meaningless lofty language that he specializes in. But 'citizen of the world' is actually a pretty freighted term given the context that this particular citizen of the world wants to be President of the United States. Perhaps Obama's ego has grown so large that he figures one country, even the world's lone superpower, is no longer worthy of his leadership. A quick prediction -- 'the citizen of the world' mess-up will be one of the issues that frames the rest of the election."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins compares Obama to Hitler: "Over the last few years, we've heard endless comparisons between George Bush and Hitler, but let's face it: Obama has a lot more in common with Hitler than Bush ever did. Obama is toweringly arrogant, uses messianic, fascistic rhetoric, seems to have ambitions that stretch past his own country to the world, and has legions of mind-numbed zombielike followers doing his bidding and blaming all their problems on convenient scapegoats. So, with that in mind, meet ObamaHitler!"

OBAMA V: Yawwwn

Other conservative bloggers weren't offended by the content of Obama's spech; they simply found it boring and cliche-ridden:

• NRO's Amy Holmes: "Berlin, Paris, Kalamazoo. He could have given this speech anywhere. Obama goes to Berlin and winds up in Bangor. But maybe that was the point. Unlike JFK, Clinton, or Reagan, Obama's purpose in Berlin was essentially self-serving. The great cause at stake was his own campaign -- not the threat of Communism, or adapting to a post-Communist world. The great purpose to which Obama was asking his Berlin audience to rally was his own presidential aspirations. Pretty thin, not the stuff of history books."
• RedState's Kevin Holtsberry: "This was not a serious speech by a serious person, but another attempt by Obama to seem important by giving a big speech on a grand stage. There is nothing in that speech that is meaningful, insightful, or useful. It is a an amalgamation of liberal idealism and arrogant do-goodism. It is an attempt to paint the world as in some kind of universal crisis so that Obama can claim the leadership role and the mantle of change not just in a presidential election cycle but worldwide."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I didn't think Obama's Berlin speech was as bad as Scott [Johnson] did. Actually, I could have given large chunks of it myself, although perhaps not with a straight face. It will no doubt contribute to the dawning realization among Obama's nutroot fans that he doesn't need them and doesn't much care what they think."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "There was not a ton to object to, and indeed a lot to like, in Obama's speech in Berlin. Although I think I preferred it the first time I heard it, when it was sung by all those celebrities and rock stars back in the mid-80s. Oh, wait, that was 'We Are The World.'"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Barack Obama's speech in Berlin was a coherent, articulate, but hardly memorable expression of the liberal internationalism that, I take it, will govern his foreign policy if he is elected president. This approach to foreign policy wisely recognizes the need for the U.S. to be heavily engaged in the world, but fails fully to recognize the need for this engagement to be backed up by force and the credible threat of force."
• NRO's Kathleen Parker: "Obama's speech struck me as so riddled with clichés that even he was bored. It seemed like his speechwriters went through a bunch of old speeches, pulled favorite phrases and strung them together between a few poll-approved Big Ideas."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "For a supposed rhetorical genius, Barry never actually delivers any memorable lines, does he? It's the circumstances of his speeches that make them 'memorable.' The best he can do by way of takeaways is Zen pap like 'Yes, we can' or 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' or today's latest mindless positive affirmation, 'This is our moment, this is our time.' [...] As petty as McCain's attacks lately on Obama's popularity have been, I sympathize with his emperor's-new-clothes predicament on this point. It's one thing for the media to politely ignore that this crap is cliche and an inch deep, but to actually celebrate it as evidence of eloquence?"

MCCAIN: Hypocrisy Watch

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy after he criticized Obama for making a speech in a foreign country, noting that McCain has already given political speeches in foreign countries during this campaign:

"'I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States,' McCain told [NBC's Kelly] O'Donnell. 'But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make.'

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign."

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Remember one month ago when John McCain traveled to Canada as a campaign expense and gave a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto to sing the praises of NAFTA and implicitly hit Obama for raising some doubts about the trade agreement? Apparently, John McCain doesn't remember that. Because today he's criticizing Barack Obama for giving a campaign speech in another country."
• Bowers: "Seventeen days after taking a trip abroad to Columbia and Mexico, five weeks after giving a paid campaign speech in Canada, and two months after criticizing Obama for not going to Iraq, the McCain campaign criticizes Obama for taking a trip abroad that includes a stop in Iraq."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Yes, how dare a presidential candidate speak to the world about his ability to govern as president. And as a matter of fact, here's John McCain thoughts on this very subject before his trip to Latin America earlier this month: 'Going to Latin America in the midst of a presidential campaign, [McCain] said, speaks less to his role as a senator than to what he's hoping to achieve if elected this fall. "It's more my ability to govern as president," he said, "my ability to lead as president, to keep up with these major issues."' Did he forget that he said that, or is John McCain that much of a hypocrite?"
• Atrios: "LEAVE JOHN MCCAIN ALOOOONE! DO NOT TROUBLE HIM WITH FACTS!"

MCCAIN II: Pandering To Xenophobes?

Liberal bloggers are also accusing McCain of having ugly motives in criticizing Obama for delivering a speech abroad:

• Drum: "Jeez, could he be any more transparent? Why not just carry a big blinking sign saying 'Barack Obama Isn't A True American Patriot'? I mean, I realize we're in the silly season and all, but as Atrios says, this criticism is head scratchingly weird. Non-presidents give speeches outside the country all the time. And yeah, I realize I've been posting an awful lot about McCain campaign trivia lately. But the guy's really been on a helluva roll the last few days, hasn't he?"
• Firedoglake's Swopa: "By complaining about Obama being popular with foreigners, McCain is pandering to the most insular, xenophobic instincts of the GOP base -- showing that he's more worried about them than trying to appeal to the common-sense center. Then again, the prospect of a president whose foreign policy, for the first time in eight years, isn't based on pandering to that fringe probably is exactly why Obama is so popular overseas."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Remember when John McCain's big criticism of Barack Obama was that he didn't take enough foreign trips -- especially to Iraq -- and how he hadn't been adequately tested on this big stage of CODELing? What happened to that? Now the critique is that too many Germans are interested in hearing him talk since, I guess, all else being equal we'd rather have a president foreigners find repugnant."

MCCAIN III: Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing the McCain camp's conduct during the past week:

• BarbinMD: "Can McCain get any more petty and childish than he has been for the past week?"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Reporters forced to cover McCain's daily gaffes and dissembling must be frustrated. Whether it's McCain's battle to redefine 'surge' or whining about every thing Obama does, reporters must surely realize the one thing they're not allowed to report. Sure, it's tough to follow President 27%. But the fact is, whatever John McCain once was, campaigning against Obama has revealed McCain as an angry, resentful, often befuddled old man. Every reporter must sense this, but none will report it as his team works the refs with the phony charge they've being unfair to their man."
• DemFromCT: "While Obama looks Presidential, McCain looks petulant. He's ignored his own trips to Canada (with speeches) and Central and South America to suggest that Obama shouldn't be giving speeches abroad. This, after bitterly complaining that Obama hadn't gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now complaining that he has. McCain has had a terrible week, and Obama has had a great one."

MCCAIN IV: Adventures In Illogic

Liberal bloggers are sharply criticizing McCain's defense of his incorrect assertion that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" (as we've noted previously, the Anbar Awakening began months before the surge strategy was implemented). When asked to explain his remarks, McCain claimed that what the Bush administration calls "the surge" was actually "a counter-insurgency strategy...made up of a number of components," some of which began before the Anbar Awakening. Liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain is simply trying to redefine words in an effort to conceal the fact that he messed up:

• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "McCain submits that the surge is really a... counterinsurgency strategy... and so any counterinsurgency strategy is a surge... and the Anbar Awakening was part of a counterinsurgency strategy... so even though it occurred months before the surge, it's still... a surge! [...] And here's where McCain has lost the plot. Remember that McCain is making an argument that he can prosecute not only a better war than Barack Obama can, but also a better one than President [George W.] Bush has. Key to that has been his dual invocation that he supported the new troop surge of 2007 but also was a fierce critic of a mismanaged war during the years prior. By conflating the pre-2007 approach with the post-2007 approach -- all to save his ass from simply admitting that he doesn't understand what the surge and the Awakening actually are -- McCain completely messes up his own argument for why he's better equipped to prosecute the war. Unless the July 2008-era-McCain wants to argue that we really were succeeding in Iraq in 2005!"
• dday: "So to follow John McCain's logic, everything positive that's ever happened in Iraq is part of the surge, even those occurences that began well before the actual increase in troops, which is, you know, the surge, as defined by the US military and political leaders and pretty much everybody who's ever talked about it. And everything negative is part of the 'failed strategy' of which he was the number one critic. So, bad stuff -- McCain knew it was bad and spoke out. Good stuff -- McCain personally directed it. [...] Of course, this is completely illogical. If the surge is merely counterinsurgency strategy, then we've been surging since 2005 when COIN was implemented, with mixed results, mind you. But since the elite media has very little understanding of Iraq themselves, and since any attempt to clean up the historical record yields the charge that they are undermining the work of the troops, this will probably go unchallenged. Or maybe challenged, by the Obama campaign, but left for the audience to figure out on their own."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Using these rules, why don't we just retroactively define anything positive as the surge and credit the McMaverick. Got a raise at work? Thank the surge and John McCain. Hit the lottery? John McCain can tell you how it is related to the surge."
• Ezra Klein: "To paraphrase a certain presidential candidate, looks like McCain would rather lie to the American people in order to avoid political embarrassment than admit a mistake and offer a truthful account of the past few years in Iraq. After mixing up the beginning of the surge (2007) with the beginning of the Anbar Awakening (2006), McCain is responding to critics by...digging deeper and redefining words."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "John McCain: confused, now with an added dose of desperate."

Conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh weighs in on the controversy: "Strictly speaking, the awakening began prior to the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy. [...] It would be a good and illuminating deal if the following exchange could take place: McCain could admit that he misstated the strict chronology of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy. In return, Obama could admit that he was completely and entirely wrong about how effective the introduction of the surge and the implementation of the counterinsurgency strategy would be."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Shifting Issue Terrain?

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong:

"The terrain of the '08 election has, issue-wise, wildly shifted. Gone are the days when Iraq was the number one issue with half the voters and Healthcare was a strong second. Here are the days when 'Economic Security' is the dominant issue and Gas Prices and Job Security are at the top. Iraq is last elections issue. Neither Obama or McCain has fully adjusted to the new terrain. McCain has been more out-front and aggressive in defining himself with it, Obama has been holding back to date. That mirrors the Congress, where Democrats are content with the current dynamics and want to holdout for '09 to address the issue, and Republicans are looking for an issue to move the polls with for '08. If [these remain] the 'economic security' positions of the parties going into the '08 election, [Dems] are not going to win some races we should have, and the GE is going to be very close."

LEST WE FORGET: Too Much Information

From Overheard in the Office:

Maintenance guy: "I'll tell you. Back when I was in prison, at first I couldn't sleep because of all the noise. But I got so used to it that now I can't sleep when it's quiet."
Boss: "When you were where?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:19 PM

July 24, 2008

7/24: Gaffe-tastic!

Righty and lefty bloggers are both writing about gaffes today. Liberal bloggers continue to hammer John McCain for incorrectly asserting that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" (as we noted yesterday, the Anbar Awakening began months before the surge strategy was implemented). Liberal bloggers believe that McCain's remarks suggest that either (a.) he is alarmingly ignorant of recent events in Iraq, or (b.) he is deliberately (and misleadingly) trying to attribute all of the recent improvements in Iraq to the surge strategy that he promoted.

Interestingly, McCain has refused to back down from his remarks. Instead he offered his own definition of the term "surge", which he described as "a counter-insurgency strategy...made up of a number of components" and which allegedly began before the Anbar Awakening. Liberal bloggers are disputing McCain's definition and arguing that "the surge" has always referred to President George W. Bush's decision to deploy extra troops to Iraq in early 2007. While it's clear that liberal bloggers aren't satisfied by McCain's explanation and will continue to criticize him, it remains to be seen whether political reporters are satisfied or whether they will ask McCain more questions about his remarks.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are slamming Barack Obama for incorrectly asserting that the U.S. Senate Banking Committee is "my committee" (in reality, Obama does not have a seat on this committee). While a few conservative bloggers are chalking up Obama's gaffe to exhaustion, most see it as evidence of Obama's "megalomania". They see today's Berlin speech as additional evidence of Obama's megalomania, and many predict that it will backfire by turning off U.S. voters who already feel that Obama is "not one of us".

MCCAIN: Trying To Rewrite History?

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize McCain for incorrectly asserting that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening":

• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "The news that John McCain doesn't understand even basic facts about the strategy around which he's conducting most of his campaign is obviously extremely important. First, CBS's judicious editing demonstrates the extent to which the media is still willing to cover for Maverick McStraightTalk. But more importantly, is also reminds us that Wes Clark was right. McCain's war heroism is admirable, and can even be seen as some sort of qualification for the presidency, but it most certainly does not constitute foreign policy expertise. In fact, McCain has both awful substantive views on foreign affairs and frequently has no idea what he's talking about. Given that he can barely even bother to pretend to know anything about domestic policy, this makes his case to be president exceedingly weak."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "There's a difference between verbal flubs, which every candidate makes plenty of, and gaffes that reveal some kind of serious misunderstanding of the world. When John McCain refers to Czechoslovakia, for example, that's just a verbal flub. When he tries to convince us that the surge was responsible for the Sunni Awakening, that's a serious gaffe. Somebody who really understands the past few years of history in Iraq just wouldn't make a mistake like that."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "To say as McCain does that the Awakening followed the surge is to rewrite history. And -- this is the real point -- it has consequences. Believing that the surge engendered the Awakening is to subscribe to a self-deception whereby Iraqis have no agency, no self-interest. All they are is impressed by superior force; and that in turn implies that the key to success is to provide that awful demonstration effect."
• Ezra Klein: "As a matter of history, McCain is wrong. Worse, he's wrong in a way that suggests a confused understanding of the relationship between the Anbar Awakening and the surge. The two, at best, reinforced each other. But there is no sense in which the surge was causal for the Sunni rebellion against al Qaeda. McCain, who is running a campaign based off his superior understanding of Iraq's internal dynamics which supposedly gives him a superior sense of the appropriate strategy, has convinced himself otherwise. That's a huge deal."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "Either McCain is lying about the Anbar timeline, or he's simply confused about what happened and when. Either way, this has to be problematic for a candidate who is running on the sole platform of being better equipped to handle the war."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis responds to the following passage in yesterday's edition of the Blogometer:

"The Politico noted yesterday that McCain's misstatements 'have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs.' It's a testament to how much credibility McCain possesses on matters of foreign affairs (deservedly or undeservedly, depending on your perspective) that these gaffes haven't appeared to hurt his campaign in any significant way."

Aravosis: "No, sorry. It's a testament to how the corporate media, as David Broder already admitted, think they already 'know' John McCain -- they even bring him his favorite donuts -- so there's nothing McCain can do that will cause the media to criticize him, ever. When a man keeps getting confused, in his area of expertise, over and over again, and he's rarely made such mistakes before, it's time to start asking some questions about just what's going on. If anything, John McCain making repeated misstatements in his area of 'expertise' should raise even more red flags, rather than allay fears -- McCain shouldn't be making these kind of mistakes on this subject matter, and he didn't used to. So why is he now? He's run for president before, been under pressure before -- but he's never routinely confused his facts before. So why now? That's a story, even if you know his favorite donuts."

MCCAIN II: If You Criticize McCain, You Criticize The Troops

Liberal bloggers blasted the McCain camp for its initial response to the controversy, in which various McCain surrogates suggested that criticizing McCain's remarks is tantamount to minimizing the role that U.S. troops played in improving security conditions in Iraq. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said:

"Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge...but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain."

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Got that? If you think 2006 came before 2007, you're somehow showing disrespect for the troops."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "How fucking insulting to our troops, that getting history straight about how and why they're fighting can undercut their efforts. As if they're infantile hot-house flowers that wilt in the bright light of fact. Ugh."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Portraying questions about that statement as a criticism of McCain and the troops is nearly as contemptible as McCain's recent claims that Obama 'would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.' The debate, the question, is, was John McCain unaware that the 'Anbar Awakening' began in 2006, did he forget, or was he lying for political gain?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "To be as clear as possible, there were American soldiers serving in Iraq for years long before the surge began. To observe that something or other (say, the Anbar Awakening) couldn't possibly have happened because of the surge (because it happened before the surge) is by no means an effort to 'deny American troops credit' for their work. The very Colonel (now General) [Sean MacFarland] whose work McCain was citing as evidence of the success of the surge really did do good work, as did the men under his command. It's just that their work didn't have anything to do with the surge. Which is what Barack Obama was saying. And it's what John McCain was ignorantly denying. Now the irony here is that the origins of this whole farce is McCain's efforts to hog credit himself for the adoption of improved counterinsurgency tactics. He 'knows how to win wars,' remember, and the evidence for that is supposed to be his embrace of the surge. But he can't even get basic facts straight."

MCCAIN III: It Depends On How You Define The Word "Surge"...

Later in the day, a reporter asked McCain to clarify his assertion that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening." McCain responded by offering his own definition of the term "surge":

"McCain began his answer with his definition of 'surge' and then shared his own experience while visiting Iraq. 'A surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy. And it's made up of a number of components,' McCain said. He continued by explaining that Colonel Sean McFarland, who McCain visited in 2006 and was in charge of operations at Anbar province, had begun a counter-insurgency on his own.
'He told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote the surge, part of the surge, would be, would be, successful,' McCain said. 'So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this insurgency.'"

Liberal bloggers aren't buying McCain's explanation:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy summarizes McCain's argument: "So, if I understand this: the surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy has a number of components. Since the surge is part of the counterinsurgency strategy, you'd think it might be one of these components, but no: while the additional troops were a mere part of the strategy, the surge is the counterinsurgency strategy, in its entirety. This 'counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge' obviously did not begin when the additional troops arrived; it had been going on for months before President Bush announced it."
• Democracy Arsenal's Shawn Brimley: "A surge is really a counterinsurgency? That argument isn't going to fly. The word 'surge' has always been used to as shorthand referring to President Bush's decision to deploy about 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in early 2007, the first of which did not arrive in Iraq until later in the spring. By ignoring the fact that a number of important variables combined to help improve the security situation in Iraq in 2007 (Sunni Awakening, Sadr's decision to stand down his militia, the movement of Sunni and Shia in Baghdad into defensible enclaves), the McCain campaign is ignoring important facts, and distorting the historical record."
• Yglesias: "The main problems here would be that nobody uses 'surge' that way (indeed, John McCain has a long history of using the term 'surge' the same way as everyone else) and also that the short form of counterinsurgency the abbreviation-mad military uses is 'COIN.' But of course maybe McCain will say that he has a private language in which 'surge' means 'counterinsurgency' and it's therefore wrong to bother him about this. In which case, I suppose it's hard for anyone to ever prove that he's wrong. But on the other hand if that's what he means, then it's hard to make sense of the claim that McCain was 'right about the surge' whereas Obama was 'wrong' since if 'the surge' is just a generic term for the use of counterinsurgency tactics the I don't think McCain and Obama ever really disagreed."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Maybe McCain is arguing that we can use the 'surge' label on any aspect of the war we want? The surge: It can be whatever you want it to be..."

OBAMA: Looks Like Someone's A Little Jet-Lagged...

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for incorrectly asserting that the U.S. Senate Banking Committee is "my committee" (in reality, Obama does not have a seat on this committee):

"Responding to an Israeli reporter's question Wednesday on his commitment to protect the Jewish state, Barack Obama pointed to a bill 'we passed' in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that tightens sanctions and authorizes divestment from Iran. 'My committee,' he called it. Except that he isn't a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. [...]

An Obama spokesman tells CNN 'it was his bill, not his committee,' referring to the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act that the Illinois senator sponsored and introduced in May 2007. The measure was then referred to the Banking Committee, and passed a vote of 19-2 on July 17."

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "If committed by a Republican, this would be a gaffe of historic proportions. Even a Senator as inattentive to his duties as Obama certainly knows what committees he serves on. For him to fabricate the claim, out of whole cloth, that the Senate Banking Committee is '[his] committee,' strikes me as another sign of Obama's megalomania. That, plus more evidence that he is totally at sea without a teleprompter."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Barack Obama has proved himself an extraordinarily cynical politician. He doesn't believe in much, but he certainly believes in his own power to make voters believe whatever he says, even when what he says today contradicts what he said yesterday, and even when it constitutes a bald fiction, such as his claim that the Senate Banking Committee is '[his] committee.' Some day it may begin to dawn on attentive observers that Obama represents a type that flourishes on many college campuses. The technical term that applies to Obama is b.s. artist."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Once again, Obama wants to claim credit for efforts on which he served no role. Either that, or Obama is such a dilettante that he has no idea on which committees he actually belongs. It could even be both. Neither gives any confidence that Obama has any grasp at all of his own job, let alone the one for which he's campaigning. Maybe he needed a lot more than three years to get acclimated to national politics."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "This guy is going to be harder than Bill Clinton to keep up with. The next whopper whips along before you have time to wrap your brain around the last one."
• The Next Right's Jon Henke: "Barack Obama is not on the US Senate Banking Committee. However, we certainly wish Sen. Obama the best of luck in being appointed to the Senate Banking Committee in 2009."

OBAMA II: Bad Move, Barack

Many conservative bloggers think Obama is making a strategic mistake by delivering a major speech in Berlin:

• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "I'd really like to know which genius on the Obama campaign thought it would be a good idea to have their candidate conduct a major campaign rally in Europe with three months to go till the election and their candidate, despite an incredibly favorable climate and a fumbling opponent, still clinging to a 2-4 point lead in the polls? [...] Having your candidate appear in front of tens of thousands of adoring European fans when your campaign's biggest problem, as John Judis puts it today, is that 'Obama remains the "mysterious stranger" rather than the "American Adam" to too many voters who are put off rather than attracted by his race and exotic background' strikes me as the height of political folly."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "How will Obama's courtship of Germany play in Peoria? Is it redolent of John Kerry's 'global test?'"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "There is always the danger that some voters will be turned off by the love-fest with European throngs: bragging about international popularity didn't get John Kerry very far. (John McCain is obviously trying to play off this with his domestic 'Berlin' radio blitz.) I find it hard to figure out which voters are going to be moved by a massive show of affection by Germans for Obama. Voters who think he's 'not one of us' are going to be irked and the folks who are genuinely concerned about foreign policy smarts and credentials aren't necessarily going to be wowed by a mass rally."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Nothing says 'character reference' like a teeming crowd of thousands of adoring Germans chanting your name."

RedState's Erick Erickson is disgusted that Obama is speaking "at a location Hitler himself set up for aesthetic purposes": "Barack Obama is set to speak at the Victory Column in Berlin. [...] Originally, the column was in a different location, but Hitler moved it in 1939 to its present location. He too wanted a beautiful stage and backdrop in Berlin. I'll refrain from pointing out the irony here. [...] But, okay, I can't help myself, Barack Obama is using propaganda FILMED IN GERMANY MADE POSSIBLE BY THE NAZIS RELOCATING THE FREAKING STATUTE!!!!!!! to woo Americans to vote for him. He's going to have freaking film crews there and the media to make sure the full emotional impact reaches back to the United States. And why do this in Germany and not the Middle East? Because those rednecks in Pennsylvania and Michigan will not be so tipped off to see a mass of white folks applauding Obama as they would a mass of Arabs. And the rednecks won't be able to tell the Germans from Americans. So win-win for Obama. But again, I find it both ironic and amusing that Barack Obama is going to Germany and is using Germans in Berlin at a location Hitler himself set up for aesthetic purposes in order to woo American voters. The man has no shame. He'll say anything and do anything to get himself elected."

OBAMA III: See? The Public Supports Timelines!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the new NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, which finds that "60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable [for withdrawal from Iraq], while 30% say it's a bad idea".

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Barack Obama has won the argument on Iraq. The latest NBC/WSJ Poll, released tonight, shows that 60% of the voters think a timetable is a good idea, and 30% think it's a bad idea. Arguments about the success of the surge are irrelevant."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Republicans have slacked on their War On Evil messaging. It now looks like the American and Iraqi people agree on a withdrawal strategy, and the Democratic nominee is ready to lead it."
• Atrios: "Far Left America agrees with Obama's left wing radical peacenik position. [...] America: A nation of dirty fucking hippies."
• Open Left's Mimikatz: "As many of us predicted, as soon as the public understood that the Iraqis wanted us to set a timeline to leave, they were supportive of the Obama position. The public has always supported leaving when things were bad, and also when they seemed ok. Support for staying goes up when things are bad but [are] promised to be better in the near future, say, in 6 months. That has always been the appeal of the Friedman Unit. But now that the Iraqi government has made their views clear, the way is cleared for a majority here to also favor a timeline as Obama has proposed. Checkmate indeed."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Objects In Rear-View Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"I continue to be amazed at how many people seem to believe that Barack Obama is crushing John McCain. Kevin Drum writes, 'McCain is pretty obviously doomed this year.' Howard Fineman writes, 'You can't make up how bad things are going for McCain.'

But...Obama is up by two points right now, according to pollster.com's polling average. Now, I agree that Obama has a better chance than McCain to increase his standing, but the fact is that right now he's barely ahead. I agree with Chris [Orr] that, so far, the media's one-sided attention to (and scrutiny of) Obama has helped McCain more than it's hurt him. Of course, it's entirely possible that Obama's foreign trip will make his lead spike. If it doesn't, though, I expect the conventional wisdom about Obama's lead to change quickly, and quite possibly for panic to set in."

LEST WE FORGET: Prince of Darkness Mows Down Pedestrian In DC Melee

Gawker's Alex Pareene:

"Robert Novak -- respected conservative journalist/commentator and grim spectre of soulless walking death -- ran over a guy in his black Corvette this morning. Hilariously, a Politico reporter got the story by walking by. Novak hit the guy and then continued merrily speeding along until a bicyclist stopped him and said 'you hit someone.' Novak allegedly threw his head back and cackled for a moment before shooting him. There are no details about the pedestrian's condition. [...]

If recent history is any indication, Judy Miller will get jail time for this."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:06 PM

July 23, 2008

7/23: Another Foreign Policy Gaffe?

Liberal bloggers are hammering John McCain for incorrectly asserting that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" (in reality, the Anbar Awakening began months before the surge strategy was implemented). Liberal bloggers are describing McCain's statement as a "breathtaking" mistake that "disqualifies him from being president". They're also tying McCain's remark to his other Iraq-related misstatements -- such as confusing Shiites and Sunnis and making an incorrect statement about troop levels -- and arguing that the presumptive GOP nominee is ignorant of basic facts about Iraq.

The Politico noted yesterday that McCain's misstatements "have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs." It's a testament to how much credibility McCain possesses on matters of foreign affairs (deservedly or undeservedly, depending on your perspective) that these gaffes haven't appeared to hurt his campaign in any significant way. Given that Barack Obama does not have McCain's years of political and military experience, these sorts of mistakes would likely do considerable damage to the Dem candidate's presidential hopes.

MCCAIN: All In The Timing

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for incorrectly asserting that the surge strategy "began the Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks revolted against al-Qaida in Anbar province. In reality, the Anbar Awakening "got under way before President [George W.] Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops":

"'I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened,' McCain told 'CBS Evening News,' adding that Col. Sean MacFarland was contacted by a major Sunni sheik.

'Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening,' McCain said, referring to the U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Anbar province. 'I mean, that's just a matter of history.'

The problem with McCain's statement -- as Obama's campaign quickly noted -- was that the awakening got under way before President Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to help combat violence."

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "John McCain has been caught in a big foreign policy slip, saying during his interview with CBS Evening News that the surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening, an event that first happened before the surge."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's simply breathtaking. When it comes to his signature issue, McCain is little more than a fool. He's spouting obvious and demonstrable nonsense with the kind of confidence that only comes with abject stupidity."
• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the 'war on terror.' If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "This specific timing issue aside, we can see here the larger point that McCain doesn't actually seem to know what the surge was. But the surge troops were overwhelmingly sent to increase the level of manpower in Baghdad (i.e., not where the Anbar Awakening happened) and almost certainly (along with a tactical shift to more of a population protection mission) deserves credit for reducing the bloodshed in Baghdad by stabilizing the borders between now-segregated neighborhoods. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that it had nothing to do what happened in Anbar, but it wasn't a major factor, and certainly didn't make anything happen in September 2006."

The Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls notes that McCain hasn't always been wrong about the timing of the Anbar Awakening: "Especially notable is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the Awakening, and whether or not it was caused by the surge. Fresh off one of his much-touted trips to Iraq, McCain delivered remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007. Alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain specifically advocated for the newly proposed surge, and cited the already-in-progress turning of Sunni sheiks as a reason to send more troops."

MCCAIN II: A Total Collapse?

Liberal bloggers are portraying the events of the past few days (specifically, the Iraqi government's announcement that it shares Obama's desire to have U.S. troops leave Iraq by 2010) as a significant blow to McCain's chances:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "[McCain had] spent several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the 'progress' in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality. But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he'd been right all along! That's about as close to 'game, set, match' as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What's more, given the domestic situation and John McCain's inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can't afford to play for a draw on Iraq."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Josh [Marshall] and I were discussing a little while ago just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks. It's remarkable and hard to think of any recent historical parallels. The implications for John McCain are hard to overstate."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Between John McCain's adoption of Obama's Afghanistan policy and now Iraq's endorsement of Obama's Iraq policy, there's a subtext that underpins Obama's entire trip to the Middle East: Obama was right, John McCain was wrong. [...] The beauty of this message is that it reinforces one of the central themes of Obama's campaign, which is that judgment is more important than experience and as Obama's slam dunk of a trip coincides with even more McCain stumbles (umm, what Iraq-Pakistan border, exactly?) McCain is aiding and abetting the destruction of the only thing he had left in this election."

MCCAIN III: Taking The Gloves Off

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain for telling a NH audience, "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Bloggers are arguing that McCain's attack on Obama is "outrageous" and that it contradicts his earlier promise to "run a respectful campaign focused on the issues":

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Yep, because nothing says 'respectful campaign' like accusing your rival of hoping America loses a war in order to serve his personal ambition."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "McCain accuses the Democratic nominee for President of wanting to 'lose the war.' Not a surrogate, not a 527 -- John McCain said that. [...] It's a truly classy, relentlessly positive, issue-focused campaign they're running over there."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "John McCain basically just accused Barack Obama of treason. Had we done that to McCain, just imagine the fireworks. Will the media report how outrageous and desperate McCain has become, or will they do their usual he-said-she-said and present McCain's 'argument' as something worthy of honest debate?"
• digby: "Whatever you do, don't impugn this man's character. He did something worthy 40 years ago which allows him to say any nasty thing he pleases and then lead the entire political establishment in a group whine if anyone calls him on it."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Does anyone still doubt [McCain] is any different from the current occupants of the executive branch? This was inevitable when he got folks like [Michael] Goldfarb and [Karl] Rove apparatchiks running [his] campaign."

Time's Joe Klein calls McCain's statement "shockingly unpresidential": "This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad."

MCCAIN IV: Pot, Meet Kettle

After the McCain camp launched a web video alleging that the media is "in love" with Obama, liberal bloggers are pushing back, arguing that McCain is the last person on earth who should complain about unfair media coverage:

• Benen: "Well, I've finally seen everything. John McCain, who enjoys more media affection than any political figure in recent memory, has taken to complaining that reporters are overly fond of Barack Obama. [...] Honestly, hearing the McCain campaign whine about someone getting fawning media coverage is a bit like hearing Barry Bonds accuse someone getting an unfair advantage by abusing steroids."
• Ackerman: "Is there anything more stupid or transparently cynical than John 'media creation' McCain accusing the media of biased coverage?"
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Senator John McCain is running a pair of ads that say -- get this -- that the media is 'in love' with Barack Obama. I know, I know...take a moment to cradle your poor head tenderly in your hands and note the attendant irony of the candidate best known for courting the press, straight up, as his 'base,' complaining bitterly about this. The press' great affinity for John McCain is well-known. There's a book about it. Even an RSS feed."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As you may know, the McCain campaign has just put out a web video called 'Obama Love' a mash-up of clips of various TV commentators gushing over Obama. But let's remember we've all seen the McCain Love video. It's called watching the last dozen years of political television. Indeed, the political press's reckless and giddy love for McCain is so universally acknowledged that McCain himself has often joked about the press as his 'base.' So what do we have here but a candidate who can't brook the idea of not campaigning on a wave of press adulation? And now he's framing his whole candidacy around a campaign of strategic whining about the claim that the political press is treating his younger opponent like he's been treated for over a decade. He's got the preening and envy of a sore losing runner-up for prom queen."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Yes, Obama is getting some great coverage on the trip that McCain pushed and pushed. But, lest we forget, it was McCain who got the Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles (his favorites) from AP's Liz Sidoti and Ron Fournier. That incident alone negates any complaining by McCain -- ever."

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin also accuses McCain of hypocrisy: "I agree with the message [of the videos], of course. And the vids are well-executed. But doesn't anyone at McCain Central feel the least bit silly mocking the same suck-up media that McCain himself basked in so warmly until just very recently and spent his entire career wooing? Free piece of advice to the lovelorn Maverick: Perhaps McCain should leave the media mockery to others who haven't had their lips planted on the MSM's backside for decades."

OBAMA: A Propaganda Show?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the media's coverage of Obama's foreign trip and arguing that the media is trying to help Obama win:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Throughout Obama's Middle East and European trip, the media has willingly participated in a show and orchestration of propaganda, passing out staged and orchestrated images of Barack Obama attempting to boost his image. [...] The media has become the self-appointed propaganda master for Barack Obama's campaign. The media has become Leni Riefenstahl. Therein lies the danger. By becoming Obama's propaganda master, the media is failing to ask the tough questions in its quest to do their candidate no harm. And that is a disservice to the public. Of course the public already knows it. And that is the Achilles heel John McCain can exploit."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post proclaims that Obama has, by virtue of his trip to the Middle East, demonstrated his 'gravitas.' [...] Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs is exceeded only by his cynicism and inconstancy. Both have been on display throughout Obama's current trip, most grotesquely in his admission that he places concern over 'the political debate' ahead of implementing the policy that helped us avert defeat in Iraq. Obama's inexperience, cynicism, and inconstancy represent the major, and perhaps the only, barrier to his quest for the presidency. So it's not surprising when reporters like Cillizza attempt to create a different narrative, even when they have only the candidate's platitudes to rely on."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Andrea Mitchell is not, of course, a tool for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. That doesn't prevent her from properly pointing out that Barack Obama's world tour is the Potemkin Publicity Stunt To End All Potemkin Publicity Stunts. The thing that interests me is whether at some point in time, other journalists will remember what it is like to be prideful of their profession and skeptical of the latest messianic political campaign to come down the pike. It is obvious that the Obama campaign is manipulating the media -- indeed, the campaign is being utterly open and notorious about doing so. It will perhaps stop doing so and start treating the media -- and through the media, the voting public -- with more respect and decency once the media calls the Obama campaign on its shenanigans. I await the moment when people join Andrea Mitchell in doing just that."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren writes a post about "the media's anti-substance bias and what John McCain should do about it": "Can John McCain ever manage to compete with Barack Obama in a news media culture which is driven by the standards of commercial entertainment, not the gravitas that, at important moments such as a presidential race, should be the tone? To ask is to answer, as they say. McCain will win this race -- if he does -- based on the considered alternative he offers to empty dazzle and the 'change' mantra. But, for that message to be heard, my inner speechwriter says that McCain desperately needs to punch up his style and not be afraid of a little controversy and polarization of the electorate. I like his calm, controlled tone, and the wry humor. But irony doesn't go over well with crowds. And the straight-forward, informational presentation only works with people who want real information. (Sigh.) It looks dull next to a well-lighted, highly staged rhetorical rock concert. A speech coach should be on the campaign plane, helping broaden the range of inflection the candidate uses to present his ideas. (Hillary [Clinton] learned. Get her coach.)"

OBAMA II: Germans Can't Vote For You, Barack!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama camp for designing German-language flyers for Thursday's event in Berlin:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. [...] This isn't just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America. [...] The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn't trying to pretend otherwise. That's breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Team Obama insists the Berlin speech is not a campaign rally. Yesterday, they had advisers giving background briefings insisting, 'it's not going to be a political speech.' Makes one wonder why Obama for America is printing up flyers in German to turn people out."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Is Obama running for president of the United States or the world?"
• Glenn Reynolds answers Lopez's question: "He's not running for President of the United States, he's running for President of Earth."

Townhall's Matt Lewis sees an inconsistency: "Obama requires attendees of all rallies in the US to get tickets, and there have obviously been suggestions that that means that people who are not fervent Obama supporters are excluded. But he's OK with letting anyone (literally, any random dude off the street) into his rally in Germany? [...] Does that suggest he's more concerned with openness and transparency with Germans than he is Americans?"

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks the Obama camp is "amazingly tone-deaf": "The Obama campaign wants to hold a political rally in Berlin, apparently to impress upon American voters how popular Obama is among Europeans. [...] Their political ear [is] amazingly tone-deaf. If they think a massive campaign rally in Berlin will convince anyone but the most ardent Leftists in America to vote for Obama, they really need a shake-up in their campaign staff."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Media Attention Cuts Both Ways

The Politico's Ben Smith responds to the McCain camp's claim that the press favors Obama (h/t Patrick Appel):

"In truth, and while there are other dynamics going on, the central issue is just sheer volume. There's vastly more public interest in, and coverage of, Obama. His rise is a better, newer, story. That means that McCain's message has been muted; but his missteps are too. He's been able, in particular, to make it this far with a domestic policy agenda whose sheer vagueness wouldn't have made it through the Democratic primary.

The same dynamic holds for Obama: The interest in him has allowed him to turn this week, for instance, into an extended television show about his travels. But his errors are also magnified. And so the stakes were far higher for today's press conference -- which he aced -- than for any event of McCain's.

It isn't clear to me that this is a dynamic that entirely favors Obama, though it is one he has learned to work. On one hand, these are situations he largely controls, and on his turf. On the other, there's a risk of the election becoming a referendum on the challenger, rather than the extremely unpopular incumbent party."

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes Honesty's Not The Best Policy

From Overheard in the Office:

Supervisor: "This was supposed to be done hours ago, what is taking so long?"
Employee: "I was too busy working on my resume so I can get a better job."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:52 PM

July 22, 2008

7/22: All About Iraq

Iraq remains the dominant topic in the political blogosphere today following the announcement by the Iraqi government that it hopes the U.S. will withdraw its troops by 2010 -- which is "roughly the same time frame laid out by Barack Obama". Liberal bloggers were delighted by this development, which they believe is politically devastating to John McCain. They think that McCain -- who has repeatedly argued against timetables -- is "now all but forced to concede to Obama's stand on the timing of withdrawal".

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, seem split. Some are arguing that the Iraqi government's remarks shouldn't be seen as a vindication of Obama's position because Obama opposed the surge that (in their view) made a 2010 troop withdrawal possible. Others are arguing that this development helps Obama by undermining McCain's charge that Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is reckless. Still others are arguing that Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has ties to Iran and that the U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq for as long as it likes.

IRAQ: Walking Back The Walk Back

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that was released on Saturday, Iraqi PM Maliki offered a qualified endorsement of Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan. After concerned Bush administration officials "called to seek clarification", Iraqi spokeseman Ali al-Dabbagh walked back Maliki's remarks, saying they had been "misunderstood and mistranslated." Yesterday, however, al-Dabbagh announced that the Iraqi gov't would like U.S. troops to be removed by the end of 2010 -- which is "roughly the same time frame laid out by Barack Obama":

"Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team."

Liberal bloggers believe that al-Dabbagh's latest statement makes it clear that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were not mistranslated, and that the Iraqi government does, in fact, share Obama's desire to see U.S. combat forces leave Iraq by 2010:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "So Obama and al-Maliki are indeed on the same page."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "First Nouri al-Maliki tells Der Spiegel that he thinks Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for getting out of Iraq is about right. Then his spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, tries to walk this back by claiming that Maliki's comments were mistranslated (they weren't). Now, today, Dabbagh is back, and he says Maliki likes Obama's timeline after all. [...] There's no walking things back this time. For better or worse, Maliki has now firmly endorsed Barack Obama's vision for the future of U.S. troops in Iraq."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Ali al-Dabbagh says in English that the Iraqi government thinks US troops should be out of Iraq by 2010. Barack Obama's plan for Iraq would, of course, have US troops out of Iraq by 2010."

IRAQ II: Has The Ground Shifted Under McCain's Feet?

Liberal bloggers think the Iraqi government's quasi-endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan is politically devastating to McCain:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "The McSame campaign is totally melting down over the Iraqi government's repeated calls for a timetable. Their messaging is all over the place -- everything from 'this proves how awesome the surge is' to 'the Iraqis are lying' to 'we'll stay as long as we damn well please.' But the debate about whether we should stay until we 'win' -- what McSame has been basing his entire candidacy on -- or whether we should leave is over. [...] I don't see how he recovers."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "If McCain loses the foreign policy debate, which is becoming increasingly likely, he'll have an insurmountable problem on his hands."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "There's nowhere left for McCain to go here. Either he endorses a timetable for withdrawal, which he has consistently said would be a disaster, and cedes his only big issue to Obama -- and more importantly, concedes that Obama's judgment is sound -- or he deliberately ignores the concerted, expressed wishes of the Iraqi government in order to prolong an unpopular war."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain implicitly concedes that he was wrong on getting into the war itself (concedes in as much as public opinion is firmly on the side of his being wrong and he realizes that). He's also now all but forced to concede to Obama's stand on the timing of withdrawal, in as much as the Iraqis are now being clear that they want US troops out in roughly the same period of time. So he goes to the public with Obama being right and him wrong on starting the war in the first place and with the timing and approach to getting out -- but along the way he was right about the surge, so he should be president? [...] I find McCain's claim to being 'right about the surge' dubious but arguable. But even if you concede that, it leaves McCain talking about the past and conceding the real issue that is before the public."

IRAQ III: McCain Knows What The Iraqis Want

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain after he had the following exchange with NBC's Meredith Vieira on the subject of timetables:

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister. [...] If the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- 'we want a timetable for troops being removed,' would you agree with that?"

McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. [...]"

• The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "So, basically, the new McCain position on withdrawal seems to be: we shouldn't listen to what the Iraqi government says it wants, we should listen to what McCain says it wants. And, oh yeah, we should listen to [Gen. David] Petraeus, too. [...] I think that's going to be a tough position for McCain to sustain for the next three months."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "By simply asserting that he knows what the Iraqi government wants better than they do, and that we should trust his take on what they think over theirs, McCain can avoid the need to respond at all. It's a pity that this strategy requires that he look like a complete idiot, and adopt an insulting attitude towards the Iraqi government and its people that would surely not serve him well were he elected President, but them's the breaks."
• Think Progress' Satyam Khanna: "McCain is picking up a tactic from President [George W.] Bush: claiming that he can now speak for Iraqis and know what's best for them."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's the height of arrogance -- McCain doesn't need the opinions of the Iraqi prime minister, because he's John McCain."
• dday: "McCain basically said today that he knows better than the Iraqi government or its people how to best manage their future. It's the colonial mindset to a T."

IRAQ IV: Who Does This Help?

NRO's Peter Wehner denies that Maliki's remarks "are a vindication of Obama's position": "We can full expect Obama and his supporters to argue that Maliki's words, despite the clarification, are a vindication of Obama's position. Any such effort would be ludicrous [...Obama] was a relentless critic of the surge, even after it was clear the surge was not only working, but working beyond the expectations of even those who championed it. [...] We are now seeing the good fruits of the [Gen. David] Petraeus-led effort and, if things continue on their present course, we may be able to accelerate the drawdown of troops [...] For Obama and his campaign, however, to believe that Maliki's words are a vindication of his 'judgment to lead' is misguided. Obama was wrong -- consistently and spectacularly wrong -- on the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began. What Maliki said doesn't change that fact and, in some ways, it underscores it. Obama's record on Iraq and the surge is intellectually dishonest and reckless. We can only be glad that his plan, which would have removed all combat troops from Iraq in March 2008, was never put in place, and the defeat he would have authored has not come to pass."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru responds to Wehner: "Sure, McCain can still argue that Obama's judgment, particularly on the surge, has been wrong. But Obama will also still be able to argue that McCain was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq in the first place. And on the forward-looking question, McCain's charge that Obama's course would be reckless is looking a lot weaker today. I don't see any way to deny that this development helps Obama."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff agrees with Ponnuru that Obama will benefit from the recent statements made by Iraqi officials: "Obama will likely profit from the fact that Iraq's leaders have made certain statements that Obama can claim (albeit somewhat misleadingly) reflect his basic position. As a result, Obama does not come off looking reckless or outside the present mainstream. Obama also profits from the fact that so much of the discussion is about what Iraq's leaders say. For one thing, it shifts the focus away from Obama's own incoherence and inconsistency and onto that of Iraqi politicians. For another, John McCain would almost certainly prefer that the focus be on what our generals are telling Obama. However, the generals feel an obligation not to become involved in American presidential politics. Iraq's leaders are under any such constraint, and the story so far is all about their various rather ambiguous remarks."

Other conservative bloggers are offering suggestions about how to deal with Iraq going forward:

• NRO's John Derbyshire: "Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals, it is perfectly natural for them to believe they can finish the job themselves, without further assistance from us. Maliki can now afford to start putting distance between himself and the U.S.A. -- essential for political viability in a region where the U.S.A. is pretty generally hated. We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I realize that lots of people -- particularly those skeptical of the prospects for stable Iraqi democracy -- are worried that Maliki is too close to Iran. But there's a case to be made that an honorable withdrawal frees our hand with Iran, at least in some ways. Fewer troops in Iraq mean fewer convenient American targets to retaliate against after a bombing run, after all."

MCCAIN: The Mysterious Iraq/Pakistan Border

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain for alluding to "the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border" (Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border):

• SusanG: "The candidate with all the reputed serious credentials in national security doesn't know his geography well enough to distinguish between Iraq and Afghanistan."
• Atrios: "Very Serious Foreign Policy Expert John McCain doesn't seem to know which countries border each other."
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "These increasingly frequent international senior moments makes one nostalgic for those 'aw shucks' [Mike] Huckabee foreign policy fuckups. If McCain can't distinguish between Iran and Iraq, how does he expect people to buy his line that he's always been right about the war?"
• SilentPatriot: "How many more of these will it take before we finally dispense with the idea that John McCain is some sort of foreign policy genius who is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief?"
• Drum: "Even we partisans can get a little tired of pointing out John McCain's constant verbal flubs and, um, moments of confusion. But Jesus. The question was about Afghanistan in the first place, which was an obvious invitation to talk about its ongoing border problems with the tribal areas of Pakistan. So what does McCain do? He deliberately pivots away to mention the nonexistent Iraq/Pakistan border. Does he even know what a map of central Asia looks like? Isn't this supposed to be his strong suit?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "John McCain, whose campaign is based on his long-time foreign policy experience, told ABC that's he very worried about the Iraq/Pakistan border. But, there isn't one. Iran, a somewhat important nation in the scheme of things in the Middle East, is in between. [...] Pretty basic stuff. Pretty big mistake for John McCain."
• Think Progress' Ali Frick: "Before McCain repeats his claim to 'know how to win wars,' he should probably look at a map."

MCCAIN II: What Happened To Straight Talk?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's new TV ad, "Pump", which blames Obama for rising gas prices. Liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's ad as blatantly dishonest:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "John McCain has often said that he would run a respectful campaign, but he never said anything about running an honest one. [...] Did he forget that his own campaign said: '...allowing new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on supplies or gas prices.' Did he forget all that or is he just lying?"
• Drum: "Is the McCain campaign losing it? In an ad today about spiraling gasoline prices, the narrator asks portentously: 'Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?' This is accompanied by [Obama's picture] and background noise of a crowd chanting 'Obama! Obama!' Are they serious? They're going to try to convince the American public that Barack Obama is responsible for $4 gasoline? Or is this one of those pseudo-ads that never really gets aired anywhere and is released just to see if it can get some press attention from suckers like me? Regardless, this is really lame."
• Benen: "For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers. To anyone who cares about reality, the ad doesn't make a lick of sense. McCain has to hope, desperately, that we're all idiots. For example, the ad says gas prices are high 'because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.' How's that, exactly? No one is saying no to 'drilling in America.' There's all kinds of drilling in America. There's drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don't know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants 'drilling in America' to stop. Worse, the ad wants Americans to believe that prices would be lower if there was more 'drilling in America.' McCain knows that's not true, but hopes to fool just enough people, playing them for suckers. It's shameful."
• Yglesias: "John McCain's new ad says that Barack Obama's refusal to open America's coastline to drilling is to blame for high gas prices. [...] They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices or that the long-run price reductions would be anything other than tiny. Meanwhile, it's McCain who has no plan to help bolster alternative fuels and no plan to bolster alternatives to driving."

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks the ad is effective: "The Republicans seem to have settled on the message that the real problem with the concept of dependence on foreign oil is the 'foreign' part, not the 'oil' part, so the only way to solve the crisis is to drill our way out of it here at home. Over the past few days, we've seen a real flipping of the conventional wisdom script that 'it's always a good day for John McCain if the conversation is about Iraq and it's a good day for Barack Obama if the conversation is about domestic issues.' The fact that McCain is forcing this issue is reflective not only that he'd like to change the subject away from Obama's Iraq trip, but also that, between his insistence on more drilling off our shores and in ANWR and his gas tax holiday sham, McCain's false promise of immediate relief to soaring gas prices is connecting."

Open Left's Matt Stoller disagrees with Beeton: "I don't think McCain's attack will work on Obama, since it is saying something that Americans fundamentally don't believe. The ad suggests that prices are rising because of insufficient drilling, and that more drilling will lower prices. That isn't true, and polling suggests people know it isn't true. An ad that says something along the lines of 'this isn't a total solution, but it's a start' would be much more credible as an attack on Obama. [...] If you drilled everything there is in the US tomorrow and oil started coming out of the ground tomorrow, gas prices would drop by about three cents."

MCCAIN III: Killing The Dems On Energy?

On the right side of the blogosphere, Conn Carroll critiques Stoller's post: "The netroots are genuinely frightened about the success of conservative messaging on energy. [...] Matt Stoller is reduced to just making stuff up. [...] According to the Energy Information Administration, if the bans on energy development were lifted for the OCS and ANWR, America's current oil reserves would more than double. Considering that the U.S. currently produces only 34% of its oil needs, doubling that capacity would have to bring down prices by way more than three cents."

Other conservative bloggers love McCain's ad:

• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "McCain's latest ad on domestic oil drilling is a very good and effective one, I think."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I think this [ad] will have some traction."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The McCain campaign came out with this terrific ad today, blasting Obama for his adamant opposition to developing our domestic petroleum resources. [...] The ad is running on broadcast TV in eleven swing states and on cable nationwide. They can't run it often enough, as far as I'm concerned."

OBAMA: Politics Over Principle?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for telling ABC's Terry Moran that if he had to do it over again, he still would have opposed the surge:

Moran: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"
Obama: "No, because keep in mind..."
Moran: "You wouldn't?"
Obama: "Well, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and continue to disagree with, which is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on the broader issues."

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "So basically, even though the surge has been a tremendous success that has actually made withdrawing troops under stable conditions a much better possibility, he still wouldn't have supported it because he had a political disagreement with Bush. Obama would rather see failure in Iraq than take off his ideological blinders."
• Hinderaker: "Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now -- that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future -- he would still oppose it. [...] This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama's securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. That being the case, how can Obama, a purely political animal, regret a decision that advanced his own career?"
• Wehner: "That Obama opposed the surge is bad enough -- but that opposition was not itself irresponsible or unforgiveable. It was understandable, if in retrospect quite wrong, to believe that Iraq, caught in an apparent death spiral in the latter half of 2006, was unsalvageable. Critics of the surge argued that we were sending American troops to die in a lost cause. It turned out that Iraq was redeemable and that the President's strategy, brilliantly executed by General Petraeus and the American military, worked faster and better than anyone thought possible. To say that he would oppose a military plan that one day may well rank as among the best in our history is stunning. Whatever would motivate Obama to say what he did -- political cowardice, willful denial, astonishing blindness to the facts, or the mindset of an ideologue -- it ought to cause Americans to rethink, in the most fundamental way, whether Obama is responsible enough to be President."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This, of course, opens the door for many follow-up questions that will no doubt plague Obama for days to come. Already, columnists and pundits are weighing-in. Washington Post's Dan Balz said: 'Obama's opposition to the troop 'surge' that has helped quell violence and U.S. casualties -- and that McCain vociferously supported -- leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment.' [...] Obama will hold a press conference to 'explain' his statement today. Will the press let him off the hook...again???"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "A better answer would have been, 'No, because Iraqi security isn't worth any more American lives.' Which is not to be confused with the correct answer, 'No, because I wouldn't have been nominated if I did.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Declaring Victory

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini offers some thoughts on how McCain should frame the Iraq debate:

"The developments over the last few days with Al-Maliki suggest that Republicans are at some point soon going to have to begin incorporating withdrawal into their lexicon. That's because we're winning. And a big reason why we're winning is John McCain. The only reason that Obama can talk about 16 months and not sound radical is because the surge has worked. [...]

At some point, this debate is going to have to stop being retrospective (where were you on the surge?) and start being about you draw down troops and still preserve the security gains that came from the surge John McCain fought for. There is a danger, to the extent we are seen as turning the corner, that Obama could align himself with a sense of rising optimism on Iraq through calls for withdrawal. And anyone suggesting an open-ended commitment could come to be seen as the pessimists, a role reversal from the last five years. The public's reasoning will no longer be, 'It's hopeless, so we must withdraw.' It could be, 'We're winning, so we can safely withdraw.'

And before I get catcalls on this, remember that John McCain sees an end date: 2013. So this is something we're going to have to begin preparing for. What can we do to make sure that the debate is one of 'draw down and win' vs. 'precipitously withdraw and lose?'"

LEST WE FORGET: Man Given Points For Trying Increases Total Trying Points To 643,457

From The Onion:

"HIAWATHA, IA -- After a failed attempt to surprise his family with a chili dinner Friday, Frank Hayden, 38, was given 16 points for trying by his wife, Laura, thereby increasing his running total of trying points to 643,457. 'I told him you have to brown the meat before you put the sauce in, or else it doesn't cook right,' Mrs. Hayden said. 'At least he put in the effort.' The failed sauce follows a lifetime of attempts that have earned Hayden points for trying, including failing to climb a rope in fifth-grade gym class, screwing up a tryout to play guitar for an area band, botching his attempt to fix the radio of his 1994 Saab 900, incorrectly ordering a meal in Spanish, and his eldest daughter, Carmen. Hayden is currently trying to save up the 750,000 trying points needed to get a beanbag chair."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:43 PM

July 21, 2008

7/21: Maliki Madness

The political blogosphere is buzzing about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's apparent endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan. Liberal bloggers are portraying Maliki's statement as a turning point in the U.S. Presidential race, calling it "a huge, huge deal" and "a body blow to what's left of the [John] McCain campaign". Josh Marshall writes:

"The premise of John McCain's campaign is that Obama's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq shows his naivete and threatens to squander the improvements on the ground in the country. But Maliki, who is constantly presented as the embodiment of what we are trying to foster and build, disagrees. No amount of teeth-gnashing spin from the McCain camp will get around that fact."

Many conservative bloggers are arguing that Maliki's remarks were "mistranslated," as one of his aides subsequently claimed (liberal bloggers aren't taking the aide's statement seriously, noting that it was issued by the CENTCOM press office following a call from U.S. officials). Other conservative bloggers are arguing that the key point is not that Maliki supports a timeline for withdrawal, but that McCain's support of the surge made such a withdrawal possible.

IRAQ: A Game-Changer?

Liberal bloggers were buzzing on Saturday about Maliki's interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he appeared to endorse Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan:

"'U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.'

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

'Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.'"

• Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "This is a huge huge huge deal."
• The Huffington Post's Tom Hayden: "In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "The fact that Iraq's prime Minister has endorsed, by name, Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from his country in 16 months is a huge, huge deal. Most commentary has focused on the political repercussions -- as a GOP strategist succinctly put it to Marc Ambinder, 'We're fucked' -- and that certainly seems to be the case. How can John McCain paint Obama's plan as wildly naive or irresponsible when the Iraqi government favors it too?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Will McCain accuse Maliki of making decisions before visiting Iraq and knowing the facts on the ground?"
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign? Marc Ambinder -- and his Republican source -- certainly seem to think so. [...This will] put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that."
• TPM's Marshall: "I've spent a couple hours now trying to process the probable impact of Prime Minister al Maliki's explicit endorsement of Barack Obama's 16 month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. My first instinct is always to try not to overstate the impact of momentary developments. But I don't think it's enough to say this is a huge development. It's huger than that. In a stroke, I think, al Maliki has cut McCain off at the knees in a way I'm not sure his campaign strategy can recover from."
• Marshall went on to make a prediction that would prove prescient: "I would not discount the possibility that the White House will muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort. But I think it will be difficult for that to seem to be anything other than what it is. What he said pre-waterboarding will always appear more genuine than whatever statement came later."

IRAQ II: You Can't Spin Your Way Out Of This One, McCain

Liberal bloggers panned the McCain camp's response to Maliki's remarks, which was written by McCain's foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

• Ezra Klein: "And we really wouldn't be in a position to discuss withdrawal today if Senator Obama's original views had prevailed and we hadn't invaded Iraq. Meanwhile, the crucial determinant of withdrawal is 'victory and honor?' Seriously? Our strategy in Iraq should be based on how good it makes us feel?"
• Marshall: "I think the clotted, dodging-the-issue nature of the response communicates very clearly the box this has placed the McCain camp in. [...] Scheunemann is betting on our believing that Maliki himself doesn't know what he means."

Several liberal bloggers are calling attention to the fact that McCain said in 2004 that the U.S. should leave Iraq if the democratically elected gov't of Iraq asks the U.S. to leave:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

• Klein: "The McCain campaign is going to have some trouble worming away from this 2004 Council on Foreign Relations transcript."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Game over. In 2004, McCain previously stated that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, then we should leave. As such, he now agrees with Obama."

IRAQ III: The Non-Denial Denial

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the statement issued by a Maliki aide which asserted that Maliki's remarks were "misunderstood and mistranslated" yet which did not cite a specific error:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "This, of course, is ridiculous. First, the statement did not point to a single error in the transcript. Not one. Second, Maliki made three separate comments about the superiority of Obama's policy. Were they all the result of some kind of mistranslation? Third, if Maliki's comments had been misunderstood, why didn't the follow-up quote Maliki at all? And finally, the clarification was, humorously, published by the U.S. military's Central Command press office, not the prime minister's office."
• Marshall approvingly quotes The Politico's Ben Smith, who writes: "It's almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn't detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he's really saying he wishes he hadn't said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone. The Iraqi Prime Minister's vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that."

Liberal bloggers are claiming that the [George W.] Bush administration pressured Maliki's office into issuing this "clarification," noting that the statement reportedly "followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq":

• Marshall: "What a surprise. Bush administration officials leaned on Maliki's office to issue [the] 'clarification.'
• Oliver Willis: "As the next president comes in, one of the things we will uncover is just how widespread the systematic perversion of the government into an arm of the Republican party is. In this instance it's the Bushies pushing Iraq's Maliki to walk back what was clearly an endorsement of Sen. Obama's strategy in Iraq."

Liberal bloggers are also pointing out that Der Spiegel stands by its translation of Maliki's remarks:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Der Spiegel stands by its story. [...] As well they should. They had an on-the-record interview in which Maliki's remarks were not at all ambiguous and during which time he repeatedly returned to the subject of thinking that Obama's proposals are the right framework within which to proceed. Against that there's a non-denial denial, in another person's name, issued by CENTCOM. Considering that Maliki in effect lives and works inside a CENTCOM controlled military installation, that's some exceedingly weak tea he served up."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Did Der Spiegel translate Nouri al-Maliki's endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan correctly? Maliki's spokesman backtracked under pressure from the U.S., but Der Spiegel gave tapes of its interview to the New York Times and it looks like the magazine got it right. [...] Maliki may or may not regret having said it, but he said it."

IRAQ IV: His Words Were Twisted!

Most conservative bloggers are taking Maliki's aide at his word when he says that Maliki's words were "mistranslated":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Lots and lots of people have noted this but it is worth emphasizing anew that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not say what a lot of people gleefully report him as having said. [...] Instead of agreeing with the Obama plan as was initially reported, Maliki actually agrees with the Bush Administration plan. One would reasonably imagine that this correction should receive more attention than the initial, incorrect Spiegel report putting Maliki in line with Obama. People have all the access they need to the actual Maliki translation. It only remains to see whether they are good enough to report it."
• Gateway Pundit: "Wow!...What a major mistake by the mainstream media. It's as if they are rooting for Obama or something. They mistranslated Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki on withdrawing US troops again."
• RedState's Mark Impomeni: "A statement from the Prime Minister's office [makes] clear that the German magazine Der Spiegel got it all wrong. In their rapture at the thought that their golden boy had conquered Sen. John McCain on the one issue on which he holds a distinct advantage over Sen. Obama, national security; many media outlets, bloggers, commentators, and pundits of the left declared the remarks to be the death of the Republican presidential campaign. [...] We now know that Maliki did not endorse Obama's withdrawal timeline. The headline writer at Der Spiegel did. What Maliki did was call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as early as possible. That's no surprise announcement from an elected head of state with political considerations, and it is certainly no surprise from Maliki, who has been calling for an end to the occupation almost since he was sworn in."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Maliki's] spokesman explained that the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continued improvement of security. This is the position of the White House as set forth following a meeting last week between Maliki and President Bush. It is also the position of John McCain. Obama's position (to the extent he has a consistent one) is different. He favors withdrawal pursuant to a timetable without regard to whether security continues to improve, though he might be willing to push back the exit date a bit."
• Commentary's Max Boot: "It's good to see an Iraqi government spokesman explain that Prime Minister Maliki's comments to Der Spiegel, in which he seemed to endorse Barack Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, 'were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.' [...] That is, in fact, the position that Senator McCain (whose campaign I advise) has been pushing all along. He has been arguing for a 'conditions based' withdrawal as opposed to the fixed timetable demanded by Obama. If Iraqis are ready to assume all responsibility for security by 2010, then it would be perfectly fine to withdraw most U.S. troops, and no doubt President McCain would do so. But it's dangerous to commit to such a rigid timetable when it's impossible to envision what the situation will look like at that time."

IRAQ V: The Maliki Muddle

Not every conservative blogger argued that Maliki's remarks were mistranslated:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks it's "undeniable" that Maliki's statement helps Obama: "It seems to me undeniable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki provided a huge boost to Obama when he said, 'U.S presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months...' [...] In recent weeks McCain has been winning the Iraq issue by making Obama seem like a rigid ideologue who would withdraw troops at a reckless pace, regardless of the advice of commanders or facts on the ground, just to satisfy the left. What the Maliki statement does is provide Obama something he can point to coming from somebody who speaks with authority on Iraq, suggesting he isn't so naive by advocating a 16-month timetable."

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau takes Maliki at his word, but disagrees with him: "I respect PM Maliki for his courage in doing a difficult and dangerous job. But my chief concern when it comes to America's role in Iraq -- and determining what that should be -- isn't doing what the Prime Minister wants. [...] My chief concern is America, and doing what's in America's best interests. Leaving Iraq quickly would be a wonderful thing. But most important is leaving Iraq in a way that allows us to meet our objectives -- first and foremost, making sure that the country is secure, able to defend itself, and resistant to Al Qaeda's threats or Iran's blandishments. If we can achieve that in six months, then all the better -- bring the troops home. If it takes 24 months or even longer, then it strikes me as a foolish squandering of the sacrifices our troops have already made to pull out at 16 months...yes, even at the behest of PM Maliki."

Other conservative bloggers are downplaying the significance of Maliki's remarks and arguing that a troop withdrawal is only possible because of McCain's support of the surge:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This is sort of a teapot tempest, I think. It's easy to understand why Maliki wants to be seen as pressing for the departure of U.S. troops, now that things are going well. [...] The even more important point is that Obama has been demanding a more or less immediate withdrawal from Iraq since at least October 2005. If his counsel had been followed then, or at any time up to the present, the results would have been disastrous. It is only because Obama's defeatist position did not prevail, and the administration instead implemented the opposite strategy as urged by John McCain, that it is now reasonable to talk about withdrawing most or all troops by late 2009."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I think the remarkable part of the first day of coverage wasn't the Maliki muddle, but the degree to which McCain successfully inserted himself into the debate and, even from home, kept pushing and counterpunching Obama. [...] The drumbeat of statements from the McCain camp and his surrogates kept him in the news and the dialogue about the surge's success going. His foreign policy message did break through: his surge worked."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enthusiasm Over Electability

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"The media isn't attempting to bury McCain like it buried George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, through bad polls. They're trying to bury him on the intangibles, chief among them the energy and grassroots enthusiasm gap between the two candidates. I believe this shift from hard data to intangibles is a function of the Internet-driven base mobilization era in which we now live. The media has basically conceded that the election will be patterned after 2000 and 2004, in that it will be close. In close elections, polls can't tell you who'll win as reliably. So the emphasis is on derivative factors like the GOTV operation or crowd size or enthusiasm which will enable one candidate to outperform the polls. The [Karl] Rove model, which (1) the media buys into, and (2) places a heavier emphasis on an energized base over tacking to the center, has perversely redounded to the benefit of Obama, who has the energized base this year."

LEST WE FORGET: Belated Responses

From Overheard in the Office:

Worker #1: [Sneezes.]
[Several moments pass.]
Worker #2: Oh...Bless you.
Worker #1: Thanks, Merry Christmas.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:34 PM

July 18, 2008

7/18 – Special Netroots Nation Edition

Austin -- Today's Blogometer comes to you from the third annual Netroots Nation convention (formerly known as YearlyKos). In addition to our regular (albeit shortened) blog coverage, we've included coverage of Day 1 of Netroots Nation. If you'd like to read more of our coverage of Netroots Nation, please visit The Hotline's On Call blog this weekend, where we will be posting our dispatches. And wherever you are this weekend, we hope it's not as hot as it is in here in Austin!

NETROOTS NATION: Wes Clark Praises The Netroots

Last night we attended the Opening Keynote at Netroots Nation, which was delivered by DNC Chair (and netroots hero) Howard Dean. Before Dean spoke, Gen. Wesley Clark took the stage and effusively praised the netroots. Here are a few quotes from his speech:

• "You've been a major force in my life...You are the reason I ran for office."
• "You are the keel on the ship of state...You keep America going in the right direction."
• "We've needed you for so long in politics, and we need you desperately right now."
• "You are the guiding compass for America. You are committed to ideas. And you spew them forth in great volume."

Clark also alluded to the recent controversy over his 6/29 remarks on Meet The Press, when he said, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Clark said that his words were "taken out of context" during the ensuing media firestorm. He told the audience, "You fought back. And I'm grateful to you from the bottom of my heart."

Gina Cooper, the founder and executive director of Netroots Nation, spoke after Clark. She said that the netroots had "grown from a tiny, insurgent movement into a force to be reckoned with." She described Dean's election as Chairman of the DNC as "the first victory of the netroots" and declared that Dean's "50-state strategy for building a national Democratic Party" is now "conventional wisdom."

NETROOTS NATION II: Howard Dean's Keynote Address

Dean took the stage to thunderous applause and scattered chants of "four more years." Here are a few quotes from his speech:

• "The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on Iraq policy alone is 98 years in Iraq, and we don't want 98 years in Iraq."
• "When Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States, he will have become President of all 50 states, not just those who agree with him."
• "I want to thank Barack Obama because has embraced the 50 state strategy...Barack Obama has done everything that my campaign pioneered and multiplied it by 10."
• On Obama's decision to leave the public financing system: "When your average donation is $68, you are owned by nobody but the American people."
• "If you want moral authority, you can't stoop to the same level as the people who attacked us. If you want moral authority, you can't have torture and you can't have Guantanamo Bay...Barack Obama will restore moral authority to the United States of America."

Dean also emphasized the importance of reaching out to Americans who haven't traditionally voted Democratic. He said that the top three priorities of "evangelicals Christians under age 35" are poverty, climate change, and Darfur, which "sounds like the Democratic Party platform." Echoing Obama, Dean declared: "There is common ground among all Americans...We must focus on that which we have in common and not that which divides us."

MyDD's Todd Beeton, who live-blogged Dean's speech, offers his reaction: "He is the man."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias also offers some thoughts about Dean: "A friend described Netroots Nation as like a giant family reunion with Howard Dean as the crazy uncle. [...] On another reasonable view, however, Dean is more like a patriarchal figure, the foundational character from which all else flows. Ultimately, though, I think that's wrong -- Dean is not a blogger himself and is, at the end of the day, a bit besides the point when it comes to the larger movement. He and his 2004 candidacy happened to be the point around which a lot of the early netroots energy coalesced. Over time, however, it's become clear that the real leaders of the movement were include a large number of folks who were early Dean supporters or followers, but that Dean himself plays an essentially peripheral, symbolic role in the whole thing. And it's to his credit, I think, that he's basically accepted that role and done it well while also focusing diligently on his job as DNC chief."

In other Dean news, OpenLeft's Chris Bowers conducted a 20-minute interview with Dean earlier yesterday. Here is Bowers' summary of the interview:

• At the rally beforehand, there were chants of "four more years." When asked if [Dean] would run for another term, he said that he wasn't thinking about it. In fact, he said that since Barack Obama would be the next President, and since the President traditionally chooses the next DNC chair, he did not anticipate being around for four more years. In short, he was happy with his term, and wasn't running again.
• When asked about the ads criticizing him and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi for [Hillary] Clinton supposedly not being on the ballot at the convention, he scoffed. Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter, that the groups running these ads and spreading these rumors must be associated with the other internet rumors going around, such as Obama being a Muslim. He also speculated that McCain supporters might be behind these rumors.
• Dean said that his main goal as chair has been to build a permanent political operation for Democrats in all fifty states, and that this goal is on the brink of being accomplished. He also said that he thinks there is no going back from the fifty-state strategy, and that this sort of broadly based political operation is here to stay for Democrats even after he is no longer chair. He was clearly very proud of this accomplishment. I was clearly in love with him.

NETROOTS NATION III: A Peek Inside The OpenLeft Caucus

Yesterday afternoon we attended the OpenLeft Caucus at Netroots Nation, where Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers led an interesting discussion with OpenLeft readers about Dem messaging on energy. Stoller declared the Dems are currently losing the debate on energy, since the GOP is aggressively promoting offshore drilling and "they're converting liberals." Stoller also said that a majority of Americans believe that offshore drilling won't lower gas prices anytime soon, but that they support it anyway because "they want people to do something...they're voting for leadership." The bloggers and activists in the room proceeded to discuss how to frame the energy issue in a way that is favorable to Dems.

Now that President George W. Bush has rescinded his father's offshore drilling ban, it seems clear that the energy issue will be an important one in this year's election. It is already a major topic in the political blogosphere, and MyDD's Jerome Armstrong has written some provocative posts on the subject.

OBAMA: Slow Fundraising Month, My A**!

Liberal bloggers were pleased to learn that Obama raised $52M in June, which exceeded many analysts' expectations:

• Daily Kos' georgia10: "The stunning tidbit from June's totals is that the average donation has decreased, from around $100 in February to $68 in June. In other words, while the average amount donated has decreased, the number of donations has increased. A lot. [...] What was true at the beginning of this race is still true, and will likely be true up until election day: Democratic voters are more engaged in the process, more enthusiastic about their candidate, and more likely to reach into their pockets -- even at $5, $10, or $20 at a time -- to put an end to Republican governance."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Good news for Democrats; it seems the small dollar donor crowd is intensely focused on winning back the Presidency. Even with the organizing around FISA, Obama took in a remarkable money haul from small dollar and large dollar donors. [...] The whining from DC pundits about how the left was undermining Obama's chances at winning was absolutely wrong. His small dollar donor army wants him in that White House, and they are going to pay to put him there. While it's often impossible for consultants in DC to keep multiple thoughts in their head, it is possible for most of us normal bluggers and blug readers to get that we don't like his vote on FISA but we want him to win the White House desperately anyway."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "It's interesting to see the press, who had previously been fixated on (as it turns out) erroneous reports that the Obama campaign had brought in about $30 million for the month -- a number they saw as underwhelming -- try to make the argument that Obama's $52 million somehow fails to meet expectations, too. Just a few minutes ago on MSNBC, Chuck Todd, whose work I usually find to be quite insightful, appeared unimpressed by this report. No mention, of course, that Obama's haul was more than two and a third times larger than that of McCain, or that the DNC more than quadrupled its take from the previous month, or that the pace set by Obama this month would provide him more than enough resources to justify his wise decision not to opt into the public financing program. [...] This actually evokes something that Matthew Yglesias wrote about yesterday: The notion that everything must be good news for John McCain. Consistently trailing Obama in the polls? Good news! Taking in less than half the money as the Obama campaign in a month? Good news! Not connecting with voters? Good news! ...? Good news!"

Other liberal bloggers put Obama's $52M number in the larger context:

• MyDD's Armstrong: "I believe that Obama could have raised $100M in June if that's what they wanted to do. In fact, there may have been plans to do just that too, but they changed. Notice that just $2M was raised for the GE by Obama, they certainly could have raised a ton more money there if they had wanted, for the GE, at least $20-30M, and combined with the $74M that was raised between Obama and DNC, over $100M. So, either the Obama camp isn't as committed to self-funding for the GE, and might still go the route of taking the $84M in public financing (unlikely); or they are holding off their donors to give for the GE later (there are accounts of projecting a $100M month in Sept); or the Obama camp will use July and August to raise big numbers for the GE, as the decision to opt-out was made on June 19th, late in the month for fundraising plans. It could be either of these last two it seems."
• Yglesias: "It's worth pointing out that despite Obama's edge over McCain, the RNC's enormous edge over the DNC means that it's by no means clear that Obama will really have a financial advantage in an overall sense. The McCain campaign and the RNC, recall, are working in a sufficiently hand-in-glove manner that the RNC ran an ad lauding McCain's willingness to break with the Republicans over climate change."

OBAMA II: Sorry, Barack, But Your Wife's Fair Game

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after he called criticism of his wife "infuriating" and accused "the conservative press" of going after Michelle Obama "in a pretty systematic way":

• Michelle Malkin: "BO: Damn you conservatives for taking my wife seriously! [...] Yep, he's whining to Glamour magazine -- the print equivalent of, oh, Access Hollywood, about us meanies who listen to his bitter half on the campaign trail and hold her accountable for her public statements."
• NRO's Byron York: "I don't see how anyone could argue that Michelle Obama isn't news. Was Hillary Clinton not news in 1992? Some candidates' wives are higher-profile than others, and Michelle Obama is pretty far up there; she speaks in public a lot, and she says newsworthy things. My guess is she would be a pretty involved First Lady. So it seems to me she should get more coverage, not less."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I don't see how Barack Obama can send out Michelle Obama as a surrogate, have her declare that the country is 'downright mean' or that Americans are spending their stimulus checks on earrings or lament her need to spend '$10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements' for their children or Americans' inability to afford fruit or that 'everything that's in a bottle or a package is like poison in a way that most people don't even know' or that what she 'notice[s] about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first'...and then expect the rest of the country to stifle its objections."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Is anyone else beginning to sniff a sour whiff of victimhood? Of course the campaign was legitimately upset about the New Yorker cover. But from time to time, what with the relentless focus on 'fighting' the 'smears' (to a point where comics are afraid to joke about him) to the widely publicized self-flagellation about allowing his daughters to be interviewed, it does seem as though there's an element of self-serving sympathy mongering going on. It's unbecoming. Presidential politics is not a pursuit for the sensitive-minded or thin-skinned. [...] As long as Michelle Obama campaigns and acts as a surrogate on the trail -- not to mention providing interviews to kissy-kissy outlets like Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood -- she is fodder for commentary and, yes, even criticism. Properly so."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "How is Michelle O any more or less of a 'civilian' than Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama concedes is fair game and a 'legitimate issue' per their relationship? Wright's not delivering campaign speeches on Obama's behalf and surely his views, while arguably a proxy for some of Obama's own, aren't as reliable a proxy as Michelle's. The point in criticizing her isn't to go after the opponent's wife for the sport of doing it, it's to highlight what may or may not be an insight into the opponent himself. It's really an attack on him, in other words -- a dumb attack, since it lets him appeal to women voters by playing the angry husband, but an attack on him all the same."

OBAMA III: What's He Talking About?

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing the press for not reporting on the following statement (or misstatement?) that Obama made during a recent speech in Colorado Springs:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It's not quite clear what Obama meant by this. If he meant that the military had taken over too many functions that normally should be handled by the State Department, then that echoes what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week. It seems to reference the costs associated with reopening consulates and doubling the Peace Corps, but that wouldn't come close to matching what we spend at the Pentagon. The phrasing of it -- a 'civilian national security force' -- sounds much more like a quasi-military organization operating within the US under the control of the federal government."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "When the Democratic nominee calls for a huge, new national 'security force' working domestically, shouldn't someone in the MSM ask him what he means? [...] Obama represents the most inexperienced, risky major party nominee in American political history, and he is demonstrating that with at best inscrutable off-the-cuff rhetoric on a daily basis, but the MSM bigs are covering for him. Astonishing."
• Liebau: "Candidates who can be trusted with the leadership of the free world don't engage in weird little riffs that leave normal people puzzling over what they meant...and with no alternative that doesn't seem either disturbingly creepy or frighteningly naive. Just another sign that Barack isn't quite ready for prime time?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Vs. Not Obama

TPM's Josh Marshall echoes a point that Patrick Ruffini made last week:

"[The] McCain camp unveils [its] new strategy of aggressive whining about coverage of Obama's foreign trip. [...] First McCain wanted Obama to go to Iraq; now he's complaining that people care more about Obama's trip than his dog-and-pony show last spring. I think the American people have to admit that they're biased against John McCain.

Let's be honest. Hardly anyone cares about McCain or his campaign. No one's excited about it in any way. I don't think that's an overstatement. Caring or being excited about isn't the same as supporting. Lots of people support McCain -- but as the anti-Obama, the alternative. This isn't to say he can't win; he definitely can. But very little of this campaign is about him. Virtually all of it is about Barack Obama."

LEST WE FORGET: A Day In The Life On The F Train

From Overheard in New York:

Kid #1: (sharing iPod with Kid #2) Hey, it's the CSI song!
Kid #2: (laughs) Yeah.
Kid #1: It's like we're secret agents!
Kid #2: (laughs) No.
Kid #1: Yeah! It is.
Kid #2: No...It's like, we're stoners on the subway listening to The Who.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

July 17, 2008

7/17: Race To The White House

A prominently featured New York Times story entitled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race" caused an uproar in the blogosphere on 7/16, as well as a swift response from the Obama camp. Criticism of Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee focused on their interpretation of polling data and the following conclusion:

"...Obama's candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations."

OBAMA: Rorschach Testing His Patience

Many conservative bloggers saw the story as proof that Obama is not the racial unifier he claims to be. Commentary's Jennifer Rubin's: "I think it's bad news for the Obama campaign: less than a third of whites have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama. And the campaign's efforts at pushback demonstrate that they are aware of the badness of this news. ... Obama gets support of 37% of whites vs. 89% of blacks. That was the polarization which the [Hillary] Clinton team, first indirectly and then directly, harped on. And there is good reason why the Obama camp is so sensitive. After Reverend Wright, Trinity United, and Father Pfleger the mystique of a post-racial candidate evaporated. And they don't want further erosion, or the perception to take hold that Obama isn't a candidate with wide appeal."

However, the majority of bloggers pushed back against such claims by closely scrutinizing the reporters' methodology.

• The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "[Nagourney and Thee] write that Americans are 'sharply divided by race' with 'more than 80 percent of black voters' holding a favorable opinion of Obama compared to the '30 percent of white voters' who do. ... The Obama campaign response points to 'multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests' and suggests that Nagourney and Thee were duped by a fallacy of inductive reasoning. For example: although Obama's favorability rating is 31% among whites, it's only a few points off McCain's -- 34%."
• Huffington Post's Jeff Chang: "So many race polls, so little insight. Today's sober NY Times poll ... comes to the very same conclusions that the wacky Washington Post poll -- which turned into a game of 'White People: So You Think You're Not Racist?' -- found last month: Blacks really love Obama and whites kinda like McCain. Good work, fellas! The Obama campaign hit back hard this morning, saying basically, 'Hey! A lot of whites other than his grandma actually like him. And Michelle, too.' White liberals like Bill Scher back them up. Scher notes that although Obama trails McCain by 9 points, he is running much better among whites than John Kerry did in 2004, especially among working-class whites."
• Time's Karen Tumulty: "Regular Swampland readers are familiar with the insights of Jackson Dykman, our datameister here at TIME. ... Here's part of what Jackson had to say: 'I too was really struck by the NYT's characterization of its own poll. ... I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based. Aside from point C in the Obama response (which is true and basically negates the story), the premise of the story is, well, utter nonsense. Are we really supposed to think that because a black man has become the Democratic nominee in recent weeks that he somehow should have cured (or markedly improved) race relations in this country?"
• Brad DeLong: "The Obama campaign is righteously p.o.'ed.... I must admit that my breath is stopped by the idea of saying anything about Black-white opinion differences based on a poll with only 300 Blacks in it. That is bizarre statistical malpractice of a high order. ... Nagourney and Thee say that 40% of Blacks and 20% of whites say that there has been 'no progress.' That's not what the question asked. The question reads: 'Some people say that since the 1960s there has been a lot of real progress in getting rid of racial discrimination against blacks. Others say that there hasn't been much real progress." If you think that there has been some -- but not much -- real progress in getting rid of discrimination but a lot of progress in reducing discrimination, then you say 'no.' I could go on. But what would be the point?"

Protein Wisdom's Karl "obviously agree[s]" with the Obama camp's assessment, but he criticizes Obama for overreacting to the article. Karl: "[T]he fact that the Obama campaign is going after the paper for it is a little telling. After all, the slant of the paper's analysis seems to be trying to advance either the notion that whites should feel guilty that they are not supporting Obama even more strongly, or laying the foundation for blaming his lagging support -- even a possible loss -- on white racism. Accordingly, Camp Obama's whining here is of a piece with their complaint about the satriric New Yorker cover. The campaign's desire to control Obama's image is now overweening, extending to attacking its natural allies in the establishment media for publishing things they likely believe will help Obama. ... There is a point where the desire to control image and message can become counter-productive."

Where Karl sees white racism in the polling data, Commentary's Linda Chavez sees black victimization. Chavez: "What the poll reveals is not a nation in which race dictates political behavior, at least not for whites. But the poll does suggest continued racial grievance on the part of blacks, with almost 40% saying they think there has been little or no progress in eliminating discrimination since the 1960's and only 29% rating race relations in the U.S. as generally good. Yet, Hispanics have virtually identical views on the progress of race relations as whites, with 52% saying race relations are generally good compared to 55% if whites -- this despite Hispanics' perception that they are sometimes targets of discrimination. Maybe the Times ought to begin asking why, despite obvious and real improvement in race relations and eliminating discrimination over the years, blacks remain so pessimistic in their outlook."

On the other hand, Ta-Nehisi Coates chastises any effort to draw broad conclusions from the story. Coates: "Sorry, but this article is pretty stupid and well critiqued by the Obama campaign. The older I get the more I think that journalism -- daily journalism, especially -- is simply incapable of dealing with something as nuanced as the black-white relations in this country. They just aren't capable, nor despite their claims of objectivity, are they unbias. Take it from a journalist -- good journalism needs conflict. No conflict, no story. But while the artisan searches for the natural conflict inherent in life itself, the hack has some polling firm call a bunch of people, and then writes a headline overstating the results."

Biased or not, most bloggers thought the Times story was problematic for Obama. However, several bloggers thought the polling data actually reflected well on his candidacy.

• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "As I've mentioned before, one of the problems black candidates often have is that white voters assume they'll use their position to help black voters at the expense of whites -- a perception white opponents sometimes try to subtly reinforce. That only 16 percent of whites believe this about Obama (or at least admit it to pollsters), and 79 percent think Obama will treat members of both races equally, seems like a real achievement."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Note that if we restrict our attention to white people, views are pretty similar -- 31 percent like Obama, 35 percent like McCain. The main difference is that black people are really enthusiastic about Barack Obama. ... A plurality of Americans say they plan to vote for him for president and though Obama's coalition includes the vast majority of black Americans, whites outnumber blacks within it. I can't think of other examples of a comparable number of white people supporting a black candidate. Given the country's history, it's all pretty impressive if you ask me."

Finally, many bloggers lampooned the very premise that Obama could influence deep-seated race relations, at least this early in his political career.

• Open Left's tremayne: "Obama, despite having an African father, a white American mother and a winning smile has failed to bring the country together. For some reason, black Americans are still more likely to see racial problems in everyday life than white Americans. Clearly, this is Obama's fault. In other news, men and women, as revealed during the Democratic primaries, sometimes perceive things differently. And who is to blame for this persistent divide? That's right, Hillary Clinton. Despite her femaleness (and positions sometimes perceived as manly) people of different genders still see things differently."
• TNR's Josh Patashnik: "Next thing you know, someone's going to find evidence that Obama's candidacy isn't helping to lower divorce rates, fight the obesity epidemic, or improve the National League's performance in All-Star Games. Some messiah this is!"

Ambinder posted a response from Nagourney:

"[W]e are comfortable that our story accurately captured the results on the questions that most struck us. ... We make our polls public in the spirit of transparency and so that others can take a look and draw their own conclusions. ... [But] I do think there is room for discussion about the headline –- 'Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn't Closing Divide on Race'. ... [And I] should have included, in saying that 20 percent of white voters had a favorable view of Michelle Obama, the fact that 72 percent either have no opinion about Mrs. Obama or hadn't heard enough about her...."

McCain: Barack W. Obama?

On 7/16, TPM's Eric Kleefeld reported a new line of attack from the McCain camp. Kleefeld: "On a conference call just now with reporters, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann compared Barack Obama's insistence on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq to [Pres.] Bush's insistence that we were winning even as things went badly for years":

"I think the American people have had enough of inflexibility and stubbornness in national security policy."

"When asked later by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein whether the campaign was disparaging President Bush, Scheunemann dug in":

"We cannot afford to replace one administration that refused for too long to acknowledge failure in Iraq with a candidate that refuses to acknowledge success in Iraq."

"The McCain campaign is taking their effort to distance their candidate from the unpopular President Bush to a whole new level: McCain's advisers are now openly attacking Bush on Iraq -- and not only that, they're also saying that Barack Obama is the one who is like Bush on the war!"

In similar dismay, under a snarky post entitled "McCain Campaign Finally Makes Obvious Link Between Obama And Bush," Wonkette: "So Barack Obama is now a flip-flopper and a stubborn ideologue at the same time, meaning he is twice as bad as George W. Bush, who is actually the same person as Barack Obama?"

TPM's David Kurtz: "This takes some real cojones."

Liberal bloggers were so aghast at the apparent cognitive dissonance of the McCain camp's swipe that most didn't bother to elaborate. But several did:

• Stein: "The charge, of course, is not related to policy (on which Obama and Bush drastically differ) but rather ideological rigidity. But the suggestion that Obama is too stubborn to change his position on Iraq is a bit ironic coming from a McCain campaign that, as recently as one week ago, jumped all over the Senator for saying he would 'refine' his position."
• Steve Benen: "Let's take this one step at a time. First, it's probably safe to assume the McCain campaign's internal polls show McCain getting hammered on the 'Bush's third term' line of criticism. They're so desperate, McCain's aides are now trying to argue that Obama is just like Bush. This is just so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for the McCain campaign. Second, it's fascinating to hear the McCain team triangulate off of Bush's refusal 'to acknowledge failure in Iraq.' Um, guys? McCain was the one cheering Bush on while he was 'failing,' telling Americans we had to 'stay the course.' But perhaps most importantly, I can't help but laugh at the notion that McCain is supposed to be the sensible, flexible one in this equation. Is McCain open to a withdrawal timeline? No. Is he open to a phased redeployment? No. ... The entire McCain operation is just a joke."
• The Seminal's Chris Edelson: "During the primaries, when Hillary Clinton tried to paint herself as the agent of change, you knew Obama had won at least half the battle. It is similarly revealing when McCain tries to argue, he not Obama, is the real agent of change -- even worse when McCain's campaign bizarrely tries to argue that Obama is the Bush clone."

OBAMA II:

The now-infamous New Yorker cartoon cover continues to shine a spotlight on the role of humor (or lack thereof) surrounding the Obama candidacy. A New York Times article on 7/15 explored the difficulty comedians have with mocking Obama, which then sparked Maureen Dowd to pen a 7/16 column asking, "May We Mock, Barack?"

"At first blush, it would seem to be a positive for Obama that he is hard to mock. But on second thought, is it another sign that he's trying so hard to be perfect that it's stultifying? ... Certainly, as the potential first black president, and as a contender with tender experience, Obama must feel under strain to be serious. But he does not want the 'take' on him to become that he's so tightly wrapped, overcalculated and circumspect that he can't even allow anyone to make jokes about him...? [I]f the dominant perception of him is that you can't make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor."

Indeed it has, namely by Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz, who crafted a fake Obama news release offering pre-approved jokes for comedians to use against him. (And now bloggers from across the political spectrum are running with the meme.)

Dowd's column triggered a lot of commentary in the blogosphere. Conservatives gave her rare praise. NRO's Mark Hemingway: "[H]ell must have turned finally into a skating rink for disadvantaged youth, because I thoroughly enjoyed [her column]."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, chided Dowd for portraying Obama as humorless and elitist. Time's Joe Klein: "Maureen Dowd Has Nothing to Mock. This is a really, really serious problem. I mean, if Obama is elected, she might have to start writing about ... universal health insurance or alternative energy sources."

But other liberals saw some substance to her argument. TNR's Noam Scheiber: "[She raises] points about the problem that arises if people aren't comfortable making fun of Obama, then does her best to fashion a comic leitmotif for him. ... Her suggestion: Obama-the-buzz-killer. ... There may be something to this. No question Obama -- and, for that matter, the entire campaign -- can be a little self-serious at times. On the other hand, Obama actually has a pretty good sense of humor, and, more importantly, he can be amusingly self-deprecating. If this becomes the frame for him (comic or otherwise), he shouldn't have trouble subverting it. ... Depressingly, though, I expect it'll be the elitist charge rather than the overly-earnest charge that carries the day when comics finally get around to mocking him. It's probably easier to illustrate (even if the examples turn out to be bogus). And, if nothing else, it's the one the GOP has traditionally favored."

Many bloggers also criticized Dowd for basing her "elitist" charge on loose evidence. Campaign Desk's Clint Hendler: "[Dowd] tries to make the case that Obama is humorless. It's a short step away from that familiar elitist meta-narrative. In service of this point, Dowd warms over quotes from herself, The Los Angeles Times, Andy Borowitz, and a New York Times colleague -- you wonder if you're reading a column or some sort of mutant clipping service -- before coming to this:"

"He's already in danger of seeming too prissy about food -- a perception heightened when The Wall Street Journal reported that the planners for Obama's convention have hired the first-ever Director of Greening, the environmental activist Andrea Robinson. She in turn hired an Official Carbon Adviser to 'measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.'"

"I think we can all agree it's a cheap shot to attribute the convention's green-focused catering decisions to Obama, especially when the host committee named its greening director in August 2007, back when Obama trailed Clinton by double digits in national polls. But Dowd, with an assist from the Journal, leaves a false impression on a matter of fact."

Contrary to Dowd's column, many bloggers find there's plenty to find funny about the Obama candidacy. Gawker: "Poor Maureen Dowd doesn't know how to make fun of Barack Obama. ... Jesus. Stop already. Obama's a godsend, because he lacks [easy cliches]. So everyone has to be more creative with their humor. Allow us to help you!

• The secret -- [Y]ou don't need to mock the man, you can mock the aura surrounding him. Barack's messianic tendencies have been greatly exaggerated.... So when The Onion put Obama on the cover of Tiger Beat, it was funny because it was an absurd exaggeration of the truth (see how that works?).
• Plus Obama's strongest supporters are showing themselves to be severely humorless, and that's funny! The gradual shift from constant outrage over matters that probably justify outrage -- the mood of the Bush years -- to this new era of outrage-for-the-sake of outrage is a scary omen for the future of liberalism in this country and also a great punchline.
• Don't: Try to cleverly call him effete. Looking at you, Maureen! The guy dresses nice, sometimes, but he doesn't actually have those effeminate signifiers that everyone seems to think other male Democratic politicians possess. ...
• Do: Call him 'elite!' It's funny because he represents an aspirational black middle class and so we have to put him and his wife back in their place! Haha no, seriously, it's funny because making fun of Harvard is funny. Don't make latte jokes though, it's not 1997.
• Don't: Make fun of his funny name. It's painful when Slate does it, yes, but even the reliable Daily Show writers fall into the trap. 'Baracknophobia' is not the level of punmanship we've come to expect from you guys. It is funny to call him 'Barry,' though.
• Do: Make fun of how people are terrified of his funny name and his foreign background. When faced with polls that suggest Americans do truly believe that Barack Obama was raised by The Iron Sheikh and spent his school years snorting the remains of 9/11 victims, all you can do is laugh and contemplate a life at sea."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Civic-Minded Parent, Or Slave Master?

The Liberaltarian: "Reflecting back on the national service plan Obama highlighted on July 4th, I found his approach to be a kind of 'parental libertarianism' -- treating children like socialists and adults like libertarians. Under his plan, middle- and high-school students are required to complete 50 hours of service a year. College students (who have more responsibility than kids but less freedom than adults) are offered a $4000 tax credit for 100 hours of service. For adults, the plan creates nearly 160K more jobs in AmeriCorps and Peace Corps. Thus, for Americans over 18, Obama would protect individual liberty but "nudge" them into serving the greater good. For dependents under 18, he would force them. The latter approach channels the attitude of a parent: "I go to work, pay the bills, and buy you a car, so the least you can do is mow the lawn every week!" So despite the high-minded critiques of conservatives like Jonah Goldberg (who compared Obama's plan to black slavery), the Obama approach seems a good compromise between the traditionalist approach of a military draft, the socialist approach of mandatory service (e.g. Germany's 9-month Zivildienst), and the Bush approach of "keep shopping, pump as much gas as you like."

LEST WE FORGET: What They Don't Teach You At J-School

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "Via the great sage of journalism, Seth Lipsky, I learned a long time ago Peter Kann's rule concerning the first-person pronoun: 'No reporter may start a story with the word 'I' unless he's been shot in the groin.' The New York Times reporter Campbell Robertson violated the rule yesterday: 'I WAS late to 'Rent.' Late to the show, and late to the city it portrays.' ... On the other hand, sitting through 'Rent' is more painful than a scrotal nick. Robertson is newly-assigned to the Baghdad bureau of the Times, which has its hardships, but I'd take Baghdad over 'Rent' most days of the week."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at 12:35 PM

July 16, 2008

7/16: On Iraq And Gorillas

Barack Obama's national security address was received positively by the netroots, who were pleased (and perhaps a bit relieved) that the IL senator "vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president". On the other hand, The Washington Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, was unhappy about Obama's commitment to a timetable, and he wrote a scathing editorial slamming Obama's "foolish consistency." Conservative bloggers were delighted by Hiatt's editorial, which they see as a sign that Obama "isn't wearing well" and that "public opinion" is turning against him on the war. Of course, the netroots would argue that Hiatt isn't representative of public opinion on the war, much less Dem opinion.

Meanwhile, the netroots are buzzing about a 1986 Tucson Citizen article describing allegations that John McCain told a crude joke involving rape and gorillas during his initial run for Senate (no, we're not making this up). The Huffington Post contacted the reporter who wrote the story and she said that she believes the incident happened:

"I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said. Enough women repeated it to me at the time and the McCain campaign had a non-denial denial."

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain and pointing out that he has made sexist jokes before. At least one liberal blogger is arguing that disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters now have another reason not to support McCain.

MCCAIN: What A Comedian!

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a report that McCain told a crude joke about rape during his 1986 run for the Senate. The AZ blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion broke the news to the blogosphere when it dug up a 1986 Tucson Citizen article. The article describes allegations that McCain told the following joke during a March 1986 appearance before the National League of Cities and Towns:

"Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'"

McCain was immediately denounced by women's groups, and he said that he did not "recall" telling the joke. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein contacted the original reporter in that story, Norma Coile, to find out if she thought the story was true:

"'I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said. Enough women repeated it to me at the time and the McCain campaign had a non-denial denial,' said Coile, now with the Arizona Daily Star. 'It came after his "Seizure World" joke, in which he referred to the [retirement community] Leisure World as Seizure World...I just think it reinforced this idea that John McCain is humor-challenged. Whatever his qualities, he seems to have a tin ear for how these jokes will go over.'"

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain and pointing out that he has made sexist jokes before:

• Digby: "I know that this kind of joking is fairly typical of frat houses and locker rooms and other all-male enclaves, but you'd think that a professional politician would understand that it's unacceptable to make these sorts of jokes in public. Even in 1986, that gorilla joke (even if it were funny) would have been out of line. But McCain has always been handled with kid gloves by the press and so even when he calls his wife a cunt in front of reporters, they don't write about it. And I suspect that these sexist bon mots are among the comments the the boys on the Straight Talk Express have admittedly withheld from the voters over the years to protect him. It's all in good fun, right? [...] But the Republicans had better keep their traps shut about civility and decency from now on because their standard bearer is a disgusting pig."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "Do you think John McCain has a little problem with women? His Chelsea Clinton joke was as tasteless as it goes. And of course his answer about birth control and Viagra was classic. But this 1986 joke during his Senate run is just off the wall. [...] Pretty disgusting if you ask me."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Given his track record, there seems no reason to doubt McCain made this incredibly awful joke about rape. Of course, the likelihood of this being looked into beyond we Dirty Effing Hippies? Low. Yes, disenchanted Clinton voters this is the guy you want to vote for. The guy against abortion rights, against non-Ozzie & Harriet Adoptions, against equal pay but totally for more of those awesome wars and really awful slanderous jokes."
• Daily Kos diarist Geekesque: "As many folks know -- because the MSM wouldn't let you not know -- [MN Sen candidate] Al Franken told some nasty, disgusting and genuinely offensive jokes back in the day. Worst of all, while brainstorming for a skit, he threw out the idea of including rape. I'm not going to defend that. Why would I? It was wrong, and he should have to repent that kind of garbage. And he's taken some political hits -- because the Republicans have gone on the attack, and the media has gone along with it. Which is fair enough. But, that makes the media's complicity in John McCain's hatred of women all the more galling. John McCain has said even WORSE things than Al Franken has ever dreamed."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hey, it was a youthful indiscretion. I mean, McCain was only 49 years old at the time."
• BooMan: "Will John McCain disown himself?"

MCCAIN II: Straddling The Fence On Gay Adoption?

After McCain told The New York Times, "I don't believe in gay adoption," gay and lesbian groups condemned his remarks. McCain's campaign subsequently issued a statement indicating that McCain "was not endorsing any federal legislation" banning the practice and that he supports gay adoption when there is no "alternative." Liberal bloggers were not satisfied by the campaign's clarification, and they're criticizing McCain's stance:

• Aravosis: "So basically, rather than put the kids to sleep, McCain would let them be adopted. I'm sorry, but the year is 2008. I'm not going to accept John McCain saying that gays are less fit to be parents, or that gay parents don't have as much to offer as straight parents, and then have him say in the same breath that as a last resort gays are fit as parents. Either we are or we're not, you can't have it both ways."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "What [McCain] said, and what [McCain communications director Jill] Hazelbaker described as his policy, are completely different. In reality, my suspicion is that McCain simply doesn't know what he thinks. The Times brought up a topic that he doesn't frequently consider, [he] heard the word 'gay,' and reflexively expressed his opposition. I'm glad McCain's position on July 15 is better than McCain's position on July 13, but I'd be even happier if he could get the basics right the first time."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This really comes down to the definition of what a parent is and it's clear that for John McCain, one can only be a parent if one is married to someone of the opposite gender. So not only does this rule out gay couples, but it also rules out single people, whether straight or gay. Pretty interesting considering he didn't seem to have a problem with his ex-wife raising his kids as a single parent when he decided he was done with her."
• The Washington Independent's Matthew DeLong: "According to the American Psychological Assn., research shows 'that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents,' and there may even be some positive effects. Also, the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on that of their children. [...] Whether McCain actually believes homosexuals are incapable of raising 'successful' families or he's just pandering to the GOP's Christian conservative base is irrelevant. If this information is to be believed, then the net effect of McCain's position would be to deprive parent-less children of the potential for adoption into a loving, supportive home. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are about two and a half times as many children waiting to be adopted as are adopted every year. As an adoptive parent himself, you would think McCain would be willing to take a more humanitarian position, for the sake of children who don't have parents."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias links to DeLong's post and adds: "But the facts are a small price to pay for the sake of discriminating against gay and lesbian couples."

McCain is also taking some heat for his position from social conservatives, as CBN's David Brody reports: "McCain said in an interview he's against gay adoption but his campaign muddied the waters afterwards when they tried to clarify and soften his position. [...] This is just the beginning of reaction to this gay adoption story. You can bet that this type of straddling the fence position by the campaign will be another talking point among social conservative leaders."

MCCAIN III: Flip-Flop Alert

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize McCain for telling the National Council of La Raza that he supports the DREAM Act when he previously told conservative bloggers that he opposes it. Liberal bloggers are also criticizing the press (again) for not covering McCain's apparent reversal:

• dday: "It's important to ponder how John McCain either doesn't believe in recording equipment or has so much faith in the people doing the recording, i.e. the BBQ-stained media, that he has no problem saying 100% different things to different audiences. Conservative groups hear 'I don't support the DREAM Act,' and Hispanic groups hear the opposite. That's some straight talk."
• Atrios: "McCain's ability to be on 15 sides of an issue which really only has 2 sides is quite astounding. I suppose that's what his base in the mainstream media are talking about when they refer to his mavericky straight-talking action. The actual problem with 'flip-flopping' was forgotten at some point during Tim Russert's tenure at Meet the Press, where even just changing your mind in response to new facts became a political sin, but surely McCain's tendency to tell different audiences different thing would qualify as that or as that other sin supposedly loathed by journalists, 'pandering.'"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It's good to be John McCain. Not only is he one of the very rich and famous with nine homes and counting, but McCain can say anything he wants with impunity. McCain knows the media will give him a free ride. So, he makes things up, changes position and sometimes just outright lies. But, it's okay. He's John McCain. But, lying/flip-flopping/obfuscating about the DREAM Act to a kid is still pretty low -- even for John McCain. And, if he didn't lie to the kid, he lied to the conservative bloggers."

MCCAIN IV: Copycat!

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of adopting Obama's position on Afghanistan:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Is everybody missing this? That McCain is now trying to catch up to Obama on Afghanistan? In fact, he's now adopting Obama's position. Obama has been saying for almost a year that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. McCain has said that wasn't the case, that Iraq was the central battleground in the war on terror. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that we need more troops in Afghanistan but we none are available unless we pull substantial numbers out of Iraq -- which McCain is ruling out. So let's all say it out loud: McCain is now copying Obama's position on Afghanistan. And with troops that he doesn't have since he's against pulling any out of Iraq."
• Mark Kleiman: "Riverboat John McCain is gambling that no one in the press will have the backbone to say the obvious: that McCain's new strategy -- reduce troop levels in Iraq to increase them in Afghanistan -- is borrowed from Barack Obama. I think that's a pretty good bet. And it's virtually a sure thing that McCain's reversal of position on where it is that we need more troops won't be called a 'flip-flop.'"
• Benen: "While Obama has been arguing for a year that he wants to send additional troops to Afghanistan, McCain has always held the opposite position, opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops, and arguing that any additional troops come from NATO. Yesterday, however, McCain reversed course, change his position, and embraced Obama's policy as his own. [...] Remember, the premise of John McCain's presidential campaign is (a) his expertise on foreign policy and national security; and (b) his consistency. By any reasonable measure, this had to be humiliating for McCain. Not only did he flip-flop on his policy, and not only did he borrow Obama's policy as his own, but he had to keep clarifying what he actually meant."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan thinks McCain's position and Obama's position are "converging": "McCain focuses on Afghanistan. He's packaging it as a 'surge', according to Eli Lake. I'm not sure how the tactics of Iraq can be transferred that easily to the remote mountains of Afghanistan, but the new focus is good news, and further narrows the gap with Obama. These two candidates are converging."

Kleiman disagrees with Sullivan: "I can't see how anyone can say that the McCain and Obama positions are 'converging.' [...] How fast we get out of Iraq is a superficial issue. The core issue underlying it is whether to get out of Iraq. McCain is fully on board with the imperialist program; that's the meaning of '100 years.' Bases, oil concessions, the whole nine yards. Obama wants us out."

OBAMA: You Want Contrast? Here's Your Contrast!

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's speech on Iraq and national security:

• Benen: "Once in a while, I'm reminded that Obama 'gets it.' Today's speech is a reassuring example. Obama isn't defensive, and he's not relying on conservative frames to discuss national security. He's taking steps -- and I hope he takes even more -- to argue that the nation has been arguing in a fundamentally flawed way."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "[Obama's speech] is a refreshing change from the 'Yee Haw!' idiocy of the [George W.] Bush/[Dick] Cheney regime and the 'me too!' policies of John McCain. [...] Nice to see some recognition that diplomacy and something other than flexing military muscle and making petulant demands of obeisance might be under consideration, isn't it? [...] The shame of it is that we all -- Americans, Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis...you name it, we all pay the price for the piss poor policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration. And if we elect John McCain in November? There are a number of reasons he's been dubbed McSame..."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "This is a great speech. The Bush administration lead us down a black hole -- an unnecessary war waged on false intelligence and questionable motivations. It was A Big Lie. McCain backed The Lie all the way, and now almost cartoonishly stumps around the country to continue The Lie. No strategy. No explanation. It'll be like post-war Korea, he says, where American troops patrol peacefully and free from the threat of casualty. No one asks how. [...] Obama delivers clear contrast with his opponent, assigning responsibility for this disaster where it belongs. But he also lays out a real, comprehensive national security strategy. I have doubts that our press is capable of communicating it in a substantive way, but I suppose it's important to hope."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "Obama's big Iraq speech today was good, if a bit listless in delivery -- he was in professor mode -- but all in all it laid out a foreign policy liberals can believe in (while not flip-flopping). [...Obama offered] the most complete and pragmatic descriptions of the endgame in Iraq that I've seen from a politician, even if some questions remain (just how big will that residual force be?). It's a clear signal to the Iraqi government that it had best get its house in order. Judging by Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki's request for a withdrawal timetable, that is a signal they're ready to receive."

On the right side of the blogosphere, The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett doesn't underestand by the netroots aren't upset by Obama's rhetoric about Afghanistan: "If a majority of Democrats disagree the war was worth fighting in the first place, you can wager a mega-majority of Netroots' denizens disagree. And yet the left is silent regarding Obama's belligerence towards the Afghanistan theatre. It's positively puzzling. Could the explanation be that the left has suddenly developed, contra the ABC/WaPo poll, an unprecedented enthusiasm for extirpating Jihadists? I doubt it. More likely is that the left is closing ranks around its candidate, confident that he doesn't really mean his bluster."

OBAMA II: Right Said Fred

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Hiatt's Washington Post editorial, which criticizes Obama for "sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "While the Post editorial board is more sympathetic to the war than, say, the NY Times, it isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal either. The fact that they are starting to come down so hard on Obama for this is a sign that he isn't wearing well."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "The Washington Post editorial page for several years now has been what The New Republic of the early 1990s was: the voice of the constructive and thoughtful center-left. (I wish its news pages were as consistently fairminded.) But it's still definitely left of center, which is why that editorial (see post below) was so devastating. It is just incontrovertible now that Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama was wrong -- dead wrong, dangerously wrong, pathetically wrong -- about the surge. The man has absolutely no business being commander in chief. His foreign/defense policy experience is narly nil, and his foreign/defense policy judgment is appalling. To see the Post point that out is an early indicator of where public opinion is headed -- which bodes ill for Obama's sickeningly messianic campaign."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It's really hard to picture the Post endorsing McCain this year, but Obama is making their instinctive endorsement of the Democrat much more difficult. [...] In the eyes of the Post, Obama has been wrong about the biggest and most pressing foreign policy decision facing the country, and continues to double down on a wrong position. Can they endorse a man who they have concluded is 'ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome'?"

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The Washington Post editorial board rips Barack Obama for what it calls The Iron Timetable, but that doesn't quite capture the willful ignorance Obama shows on Iraq. The Post notes, as did John McCain, the fact that Obama wrote his policy on Iraq before speaking with the commanders on the ground to determine the facts, and concludes that Obama is 'ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome,' but that's not the real problem. Obama has to stick with his Iraq policy, not for the good of the country, but because he can't afford to cut his last tie to the Left."

OBAMA III: The Truth Is Out There

Conservative bloggers continue to mock Obama after his campaign reportedly "scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq":

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "The newly pragmatic Barack Obama -- the one who promises to listen to U.S. military commanders in Iraq -- has attempted to make the old anti-war Obama disappear."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "By now, it's been widely reported that Barack's web masters were busy 'purging the surge' -- or at least, Barack's opposition to it -- over the weekend. Does this sound familiar to anybody? Remember when Hillary Clinton accused Barack of 'scrubbing' his web site of all support for the war? Here's a snippet from a January '08 piece in the Huffington Post. [...] So first Barack removed a speech opposing the war at a time (2004) when such opposition might have opened his 'judgment' to question. Now he's doing the same thing when the surge's success makes it clear that his much-vaunted 'judgment' in opposing it was nothing if not flawed. Well, removing any record of a strike-out is a great way to build a record of batting a thousand."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Not only is this a tacit admission that Obama was wrong about the surge ('judgment' -- not experience -- matters most, right?) -- but this move also shows a more sinister, secretive Obama. How long before pictures of Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright are photoshopped out of Obama's wedding pictures?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Weak Economy Helps McCain?

Matt Lewis makes a contrarian argument:

"Nervous people are less adventurous. McCain's experience makes him a safer pick. 'Hope' and 'change' are great when everything is going well. But when things start to go south, I think, people are less willing to take risks...including political ones. And Obama is nothing if not an unknown 'risky' commodity.

But what about FDR, you ask? First, he was much more of a known commodity. And I think that after a complete collapse, people are willing to roll the dice. 'What do we have to lose?,' they may ask. But assuming there is not a complete collapse, I would venture that, ironically, this weak economy may help -- not hurt -- McCain."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Releases List of Approved Jokes About Himself

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Saying he is 'sympathetic to late night comedians' struggle to find jokes to make about me,' Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes. [The jokes] are as follows:

Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, 'You know, we don't get many kangaroos here.' Barack Obama replies, 'At these prices, I'm not surprised. That's why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.'

A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, 'I was expecting the farmer's daughter.' Barack Obama replies, 'She's not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream.' [...]

A Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean. Barack Obama says, 'This joke isn't going to work because there's no Muslim in this boat.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:17 PM

July 15, 2008

7/15: The Politics Of The Surge

As Barack Obama prepared to deliver his major policy address on Iraq and national security, conservative bloggers laid out the welcome mat. First, they slammed Obama's New York Times op-ed on Iraq, calling it "breathtakingly dishonest" and accusing Obama of (among other things) failing to acknowledge the political progress facilitated by the surge. Second, they mocked Obama after the New York Daily News reported that Obama's campaign "scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq."

In their effort to portray Obama as wrong on the surge, righty bloggers are highlighting several of his statements from the past year and a half -- including a statement from Jan. '07 in which Obama expressed doubt that the surge would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence" in Iraq. Obama has since acknowledged that violence has decreased in Iraq and instead emphasizes that Iraqi leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge". It remains to be seen whether the debate will hinge on whether the reduction in violence has been substantial (which appears indisputable) or whether the resulting political progress has also been substantial (which is less clear). If the former, then Obama's earlier statements (such as the one above) could prove problematic. If the latter, than Obama appears to be on safer ground.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (and a few conservative ones) are calling attention to the fact that John McCain reversed his position on the DREAM Act during his appearance before the National Council of La Raza yesterday. McCain said yesterday that he supports the DREAM Act (which allows undocumented high school students to gain legal status if they attend college or join the U.S. military), but last year he told conservative bloggers that he opposed the Act. Thus far, however, McCain's reversal has been overshadowed by Obama's big Iraq speech.

OBAMA: You Wanna Talk About Judgment?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's 7/14 New York Times op-ed describing his plan for Iraq:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Even by Obama's standards, the piece is breathtakingly dishonest. [...] Obama bet the farm on his prediction that General [David] Petraeus and the American military would fail. He was as spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right. But his op-ed somehow twists this history into vindication on the theory that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been expensive, and Iraq's political leaders 'have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.'"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama can and has conned the MSM but our enemies know retreat when they see it. Obama disingenuously cites the Iraqi demand for a timetable as proof that he is following the same path as the Iraqis, but of course an unknown timetable negotiated with us by the Iraqis over an unknown number of years to an unknown number of troops and subject to their revision if they see the need to slow or halt it is completely different from the defeat on a schedule penned by Obama today. It is a testament to the op-ed's dishonesty that Obama asserts that it is 'good news' that 'Iraq's leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops,' as though that somehow supports his proposed jam-down of defeat."
• Commentary's Peter Wehner: "[Obama] still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Obama's] predictions were totally and completely wrong regarding the impact of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy -- a fact that few people have called Obama on. [...] Of course, the 'reality-based community' likes to put forth the shibboleth that it cares about facts and evidence while its opponents ignore the data when they make their policy decisions. Obama's intellectual outlook on the issue of Iraq helps him live up to the very portrayal that the 'reality-based community' likes to put out concerning its opponents."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "We never know what the future holds, and those who supported the invasion of Iraq made their own erroneous predictions -- about WMDs, etc. But less forgivable to deny progress as it's occurring right in front of you. That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the...well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an 'improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence' when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret."

OBAMA II: Nice Try, Barack

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after the New York Daily News reported that Obama's campaign "scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq":

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Obama's 'down the memory hole' approach to his critique of the surge is the perfect accompaniment to his dishonest New York Times op-ed."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "When the situation in Iraq was going badly, Barack Obama wanted us to retreat. When the surge took hold and the situation in Iraq improved, Barack Obama wanted us to retreat. No turn in Iraq went unstoned in Obama's commitment to retreat and surrender. Not any more. Obama has thrown his old positions under the bus. And, for a guy whose campaign claims to get the net, he's done an extremely dumb thing -- he purged his website of his former positions. Apparently he's never heard of a cache. [...] Is there no position this man will not take that he will later repudiate? Is there nothing this man will not say or do to get elected?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "More airbrushing at the Obama website. It's become a pattern. Does this tell us anything about how an Obama Administration would operate?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The scrubbing took place this weekend, and it may signal more changes — or it may just be a way to prep for his upcoming trip to Iraq. If Obama appeared before the troops who defeated the terrorists in western Iraq, he may not get the reception he wants if his website kept discounting their hard work in the face of a despicable enemy. While the Sunni sheikhs have been a critical part of the success in Iraq, it was American tenacity which convinced them to switch sides. [...] What changes will we see on the Obama site when he returns from Iraq? And will we have to compare caches in order to discover them, as the Daily News apparently did?"

OBAMA III: Triangulate At Your Peril, Obama

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Obama for what they perceive to be his shift in tone and/or policy:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I hope the tightening we are seeing nationally is real, so Barack Obama might learn the lesson he should learn from the last two weeks: a Democrat sounding like a Republican, especially in 2008, is a losing strategy. Let's set aside the question of whether or not he is actually shifting his positions to the center as most voters now think he is, but just on its face, Obama is sounding more and more like a Republican. Whether it be on the DC handgun ban, on late term abortion, certainly on FISA and even on Iraq, his rhetorical shift is clear and if Obama's loss in support nationally is real, it should be seen as a direct result of this."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "In a week in which McCain should have dropped like a stone and his main economic advisor called Americans a bunch of whiners, Obama is also having trouble in the polls. Rasmussen shows the race tied, and Pollster.com has the race continuing to tighten. The reaction from Obama partisans is to blame progressives. Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol and Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig both accuse progressives of engaging in childish behavior. [...] Don't expect great things from Obama. Don't expect anything, really, except blame when he screws up. It's our fault, since we didn't clap hard enough. Still, there's the Supreme Court, so I'll probably end up giving and volunteering at some point later. Not now, though, I don't like being lectured by Ivy League wankers who tell me it's my fault when Obama lies to me. That'll have to blow over."

Arianna Huffington: "In the last two weeks, there has been a flurry of stories, both in the traditional press and in the blogosphere, that has tried to portray criticism of Barack Obama's recent stands as the sole province of disenchanted members of 'the left'. [...] I am not 'angry' or 'outraged' or 'howling that Mr. Obama is selling out the left'. And his 'policy switches' haven't given me 'whiplash'. I am not offended that he isn't marching in lockstep with progressives. I'd be worried if he was marching in lockstep with anyone. Other than himself. And that is the point I was trying to make. My problem isn't that Barack Obama doesn't always agree with me. My problem is that Barack Obama has started to not always agree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens. [...] As for the media: Not everyone is approaching everything in this campaign from a right vs left perspective. Stop trying to force everything into that tired old way of looking at American politics."

MCCAIN: Hey Now, Hey Now, Don't DREAM It's Over...

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he told the National Council of La Raza that he would support the DREAM Act, which allows undocumented high school students to gain legal status if they attend college or join the U.S. military. Although McCain missed the vote on the DREAM Act last October, he told conservative bloggers at the time that he would have voted against bringing the bill up for a vote because he "got the message and the American people want the borders controlled first":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. [...] Now, under normal circumstances, one might wonder whether McCain will be pressed to explain himself today, maybe with a clarifying press conference. But that's almost certainly not going to happen. Part of this, I suspect, is because the media just prefers to go easy on McCain. But the other part of the problem is, I have a hunch reporters aren't following the race as closely as we are. That may sound silly -- they are paid media professionals on the campaign beat -- but I genuinely believe they're not especially well informed. When I heard McCain vow to support the Dream Act, I immediately knew he was abandoning a pledge he'd made during the primaries. When the reporters who travel with McCain heard it, did they notice the same problem? Do they even know what the Dream Act is?"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I imagine Senator McCain's conservative blogger friends might have a few words for him. If in fact his statement today was sincere, though, I commend Senator McCain for his support of the DREAM Act. [...] But...call me crazy...something tells me a press conference is in the offing wherein John McCain will tell us he actually does not support the DREAM Act and that his 'Yes...yes...' was taken out of context or some other variation on his tendency to tell us he did not say what he actually said. How long do you give him?"
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "John McCain just can't help himself -- especially when it comes to immigration. Today he flopped again -- or was that a flip? [...] Guess we can just get used to calling him ole Two-Face McCain."

MCCAIN II: McAmnesty Reveals His True Colors

Several conservative bloggers also criticized McCain for reversing his position on the DREAM Act:

• Michelle Malkin: "For a stark illustration of McCain's double talk at La Raza/The Race yesterday, here he is telling an audience member that he'll support the DREAM Act -- after telling conservative bloggers that he would have voted no on cloture for the bill 'because he "got the message" this summer that Americans want the border secured before we "go on to the rest"'. Uh-huh."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "John McCain was one of the Senate's biggest advocates of comprehensive immigration reform. [...] The American people rejected that plan and conservatives were on track to reject John McCain's candidacy when he flip flopped on the issue and started supporting a security first position. [...] But then, after winning the primaries, McCain broke his promise and started advocating comprehensive immigration reform again. After he was attacked by conservatives who were angry that he had broken such a huge campaign promise, he started weaving back and forth. In one appearance, he'd promise comprehensive immigration reform. In another, he'd promise security first. Well now, McCain seems to have settled on a new lie: he has started promising both security first and comprehensive immigration reform, which is what he did yesterday when he talked to the vile racist group, La Raza. This is sort of like promising to be keep people dry and wet at the same time -- and it makes no sense."
• Hawkins continues: "Now some people will say that conservatives should turn a blind eye to John McCain's outrageous lies on this subject, but that's the wrong approach. This is a guy who has made the words 'Straight Talk' central to his campaign and meanwhile, he's breaking a pledge as big as George Bush's 'Read My Lips, No New Taxes' promise BEFORE the election. That's not to say that Obama isn't a shameless liar, too, because he is. But, what should be kept in mind is that if John McCain catches any political hell for being a dishonest man, that's a situation he created by being dishonest, not a situation created by those of us who are pointing it out."

Ed Morrissey defends McCain's immigration stance: "I know most Hot Air commenters hotly oppose McCain on immigration, and have demanded that he commit to border security. He did so in perhaps the most unfriendly confines for such an announcement, and even fired back at an activist [Enrique Morones] who demanded open borders in a forceful and direct manner. Opposite McCain, we have a candidate who cheers the same activist for his work in promoting open borders. That seems like a rather significant difference to me."

MEDIA CRITICISM: What Happened To The AP?

As we documented last week, liberal bloggers have lately been criticizing the Associated Press, which they perceive to be biased in favor of McCain. Liberal bloggers are now directing much of their criticism at the AP's Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier, following the publication of a Politico article detailing Fournier's controversial plan to move the AP away "from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as 'cutting through the clutter.'"

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As you know, we've been keeping tabs on the Associated Press's atrocious campaign coverage this year. And now The Politico's Michael Calderone has a potential answer to the question of why the premier wire service's coverage this year sucks so bad: Ron Fournier, the new head of the AP's Washington Bureau."
• Benen: "In principle, I couldn't be more pleased [with Fournier's approach]. I've long believed one of the reasons more news consumers turn to blogs is that traditional news outlets refuse to 'cut through the clutter.' Dems said A, Republicans said B. Who's right? That's not the media's job. If the AP wants to change the game, I'd be thrilled. But I've seen the results of Fournier's work lately, and while the idea may have merit, there's a problem in the execution. I suppose the first time I noticed this 'new' AP came in March, when Fournier wrote an item -- whether it was a news article or an opinion piece was unclear -- that said Barack Obama is 'bordering on arrogance,' 'a bit too cocky,' and that the senator and his wife 'ooze a sense of entitlement.' To substantiate the criticism, Fournier pointed to...not a whole lot. It was basically the Republicans' 'uppity' talking point in the form of an AP article. But the AP's coverage has deteriorated since -- and it goes beyond just the AP giving John McCain donuts and McCain giving the AP barbecue. There was the slam-job on Obama that read like an RNC oppo dump, followed by a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Obama's decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election, filled with errors of fact and judgment. When Obama unveiled his faith-based plan, the AP got the story backwards. When Obama talked about his Iraq policy on July 3, the AP said he'd 'opened the door' to reversing course, even though he hadn't. [...] At this point, the AP isn't 'cutting through the clutter'; it's adding to it. This isn't 'accountability journalism'; it's weak journalism."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Ron 'Fightin'' Fournier achieved something I once thought impossible -- he's made me appreciate the 'he said/she said' template for journalism."
• Atrios: "What's weird about Sucky Ron Fournier's vision for the Associated Press is that while I'm one who generally doesn't like the stylistic conventions of contemporary mainstream journalism, if there's one place they seem to be pretty appropriate it's in the national wire services."

MEDIA CRITICISM II: Ron And Karl, Sitting In A Tree

Liberal bloggers stepped up their criticism of Fournier following TPM Muckracker's discovery of the following 2004 email exchange between Fournier and Karl Rove (which appears in the House Oversight Committee's report on Cpl. Pat Tillman and Pvt. Jessica Lynch):

"Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line 'H-E-R-O.' In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, 'How does our country continue to produce men and women like this,' to which Mr. Fournier replied, 'The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.'"

Yesterday, Fournier addressed his 2004 email exchange with Rove:

"I was an AP political reporter at the time of the 2004 e-mail exchange, and was interacting with a source, a top aide to the president, in the course of following an important and compelling story. I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Fournier for telling Rove to "keep up the fight":

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Keep up the fight? With who Ron? Certainly not with the Republicans. Thanks for not even 'buying in' there Ron, you just went and gave it away. The 'Lord' apparently saw fit to make Pat Tillman an atheist who opposed the Iraq invasion too. [...] Ron Fournier encourage not 'just the facts' reporting for the AP, but 'opinion' and instant analysis. A news bureau of Fred Barnes level non-thinking. Or as it is known in the trade now, reporting. Awesome Ron, just awesome. Enjoy the barbecue...with sprinkles."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The donuts are starting to make more sense. Last month, at the Associated Press meeting with the presidential candidates, Obama was referred to as 'Osama' -- McCain got a box of donuts from [AP reporter] Liz Sidoti and her boss, Ron Fournier. They got the right kind: 'Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles.' And, McCain got coffee 'with a little cream and a little sugar' the way he likes it, too. Sidoti explained that she and Fournier used to spend a lot of time on the bus with McCain. Jed has the the video. It was a bizarre, but telling exchange. [...] Fournier was also involved in another bizarre, yet telling exchange back in April of 2004 -- right after Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan. TPM Muckraker revealed that Fournier and Karl Rove were email pals. Oh, sure, Rove emailed with a lot of reporters. But, how many reporters wrote to Rove 'Keep up the fight.' This e-mail was dated April 23, 2004 -- right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. The Associated Press: In 2004, 'Keep up the fight.' In 2008, 'Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Obama Running Low On Cash?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks so:

"Matt Stoller got a call from an Obama telemarketer. When he brought up the FISA issue, the caller was armed with talking points designed to smooth over Obama's position. This is significant on a few levels. First, I think this is first-hand evidence that Obama's money crunch is real and is being impacted by his moving to the center on FISA and Iraq. [...] The Obama campaign wouldn't target a call like this to the netroots, because of the extreme likelihood that it would be blogged. It's likely that this is their general telemarketing script, and FISA pops enough as an issue with Obama's wide universe of donors to be included. That means, as Soren [Dayton] has written, that Obama may actually be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It's also interesting that Obama is using telemarketing, usually the least efficient form of direct to market fundraising. Though he has to have used it at some other point in the campaign, I'm sure there was a great hope that the transition to online would obviate the need for more expensive fundraising techniques like mail and phones. [...] So, it looks like they're trying to squeeze out cash any way they can.

Combine that with the David Plouffe video, and the fact that Obama is actually holding back on ad spending (getting outspent by McCain three to one), and we can start to come to certain conclusions.

LEST WE FORGET: Going To Tops Of Things Still Favored By Nation's Tourists

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- According to a report released Monday by the American Tourism Society, going to the tops of things is still the preferred activity among the nation's tourists. 'Although driving past things and swimming in things have both grown in popularity over the last decade, going to the tops of things still surpasses both by nearly 30 percent,' said ATS president Kimberly Davis [...]. 'In 2008, tourists remained committed to standing in long lines at the bottoms of things, paying upwards of $20 to gain access to the tops of those things, and then staring at other smaller, more distant things for a few minutes before descending, often to have funny pictures of themselves drawn incorporating the things in the background.' Davis added that, perhaps as a consequence of the declining economy, the purchasing of miniature representations of the things that tourists enjoy going to the tops of has dropped by 14 percent."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 02:16 PM

July 14, 2008

7/14: Shock Value

Liberal bloggers spent much of the past weekend discussing the 7/11 Los Angeles Times article that detailed how "the nature and timing" of John McCain's divorce from his first wife strained his friendship with Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. The netroots believe that the article's salacious content -- particularly its allegation that McCain carried on an affair with his second wife for nine months while he was still married to his first wife -- is very damaging, and they're disappointed that the media isn't running with the story. Unfortunately for them, it appears that the controversial New Yorker cover depicting Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in Muslim terrorist garb will suck up most of the media oxygen for the next few days. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, wish that pundits would stop focusing on the New Yorker cover and pay more attention to the actual article, which they believe paints an unflattering picture of Obama.

MCCAIN: Where's The Outrage?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about a recent Los Angeles Times article that examined how McCain's friendship with the Reagans "was strained in the late 1970s by McCain's decision to divorce his first wife, Carol [Shepp McCain], who was particularly close to the Reagans, and within weeks marry Cindy Hensley, the young heiress to a lucrative Arizona beer distributorship." Liberal bloggers are upset that the press isn't devoting much attention to the article's allegation that McCain carried on an affair with Hensley for nine months while he was still married to Carol McCain:

• Atrios: "Normally you'd think that angering Saint Ronnie and Saint Nancy by divorcing your first wife, committing adultery, and being less than honest in your autobiography about the events which transpired [would] at least cause a warm feeling to crawl up Chris Matthews' leg. [...] But only the personal lives and pasts of Democrats will ever matter."
• Daily Kos' smintheus: "We have the presumptive Republican presidential nominee caught lying in his memoir about his sordid behavior and past dishonesty. Predictably, the rest of the US media have turned a blind eye to the LA Times' revelations (though they're considered newsworthy abroad). Because voters don't need to know about evidence regarding McCain's integrity. Reporters have already presented the McMyth. What more could the public want?"
• Oliver Willis: "When McCain was tossing aside the wife who waited out his time in Vietnam for the beauty queen many years his junior, he neglected to divorce the first wife when he got the marriage certificate for the second. If this were a Democrat the MSM wouldn't be able to stop talking about it. But it's a Republican, especially John McCain, so expect heads to remain firmly buried in the sand."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Imagine if Barack Obama had two marriages at the same time. Imagine had Barack Obama lied about living with his first wife while having a mistress on the side. Imagine that all this happened while Obama had promised to speak out vocally about how gay people are a threat to marriage. We'd never hear the end of it from the Republicans and the media."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "If investigative reporters at the LA Times had discovered that Barack Obama had been divorced, cheated on his first wife, left her after she was injured in a car accident, pursued a younger woman while still married, and then lied about the circumstances of his marriages in his memoir, does anyone seriously believe that news outlets would blow off the story completely? Or is it more likely we would never hear the end of this? The next time someone suggests the media is covering the candidates even-handedly, keep this story in mind."

MCCAIN II: A Question Of Truthiness

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of committing a shameless pander after he told a new version of his P.O.W. story in which he substituted the Pittsburgh Steelers for the Green Bay Packers:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "John McCain has told and written about this story for 35 years, but two days ago he forgot the details because of what happened 35 years ago? My response to the McCain campaign would be, bloggers aren't making fun, we just want to know whether that was the most sickening, exploitive pandering in the history of presidential campaigns, or if he really did forget. Then we can decide which would be worse."
• Benen: "McCain is pandering on the one issue that, one would hope, be beyond the realm of campaign exploitation, and that deserves more scrutiny, not less. [...] McCain has always said he told his interrogators the names of the lineman of the Green Bay Packers. But McCain wasn't campaigning in Wisconsin; he was campaigning in Pittsburgh -- so the story 'evolved' to include the Steelers. [...] What happened to this guy? Is he this desperate to be president? He'll say anything to win?"
• TalkLeft's TChris: "In Wisconsin, the only thing more important than God, country, and the right to hunt deer is Packers football. [...] Whether McCain was honestly mistaken in this version of an oft-told story, whether he was pandering to Steelers fans, or whether the story has always been a fiction (a possibility that would never be considered had McCain not changed a key fact), he has messed with the Packers. In Wisconsin, that's unforgivable. Tally ten EV's for Obama."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Remember how the wingnuts excoriated [John] Kerry for his claim that he was in Cambodia in 1968? I do. [...] So how does wingnuttia feel about McSame's whopper about what he told his Vietnamese captors?"
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "Will this story come back to hurt McCain as we move forward in the general election? I think it gets at the truthiness of his character. I'm not sure what we can call this. It's not flip flopping, is it? And is he starting to use his war record just a little to much to promote himself?"

MCCAIN III: Still Learning About The Internets

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain for telling the New York Times that he is still "learning to get online":

"'They go on for me,' [McCain] said. 'I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.

Asked which blogs he read, he said: '[Press secretary] Brooke [Buchanan] and [senior adviser] Mark [Salter] show me Drudge, obviously. Everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics.'

At that point, Mrs. McCain, who had been intensely engaged with her BlackBerry, looked up and chastised her husband. 'Meghan's blog!' she said, reminding him of their daughter's blog on his campaign Web site. 'Meghan's blog,' he said sheepishly."

• BarbinMD: "Pitiful. How long should it take to 'learn' to get online? It's one point and a click. Next up, John McCain tackles 'the google'."
• dday: "Getting online requires a double-click on the browser application. I don't necessarily need a President to be able to install the DSL system or a universal broadband card, but the double-click seems to me like a pre-requisite."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "My parents are the same age as McCain, but they didn't seem to have the same steep learning curve when it came getting online. This guy wants to run America and he's stumped by his computer. That's a little scary."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Ladies and gentlemen, the candidate of so much experience [that] he has no experience with the modern world. [...] Not to get too pedantic here, but neither Drudge nor Politico are blogs and 'RealPolitics' doesn't even exist. The thing I assume he's talking about isn't a blog either. Not that I necessarily expect a presidential candidate to spend a ton of time reading blogs, but maybe he should know what one is and if he doesn't read any and is asked about it could say that."
• Benen: "This isn't just about physical age; it's about a candidate who seems more comfortable in the past, and lacks a vision for the future."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Is John McCain trying to convince people he's actually Grandpa Simpson's older brother?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "It would be pretty staggering to elect a president in 2008 who barely knows what the Internet is."

MCCAIN IV: More Of The McSame

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after his campaign surrogate, SC Gov. Mark Sanford, admitted to "drawing a blank" after CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked him to name a significant economic difference between McCain and President George W. Bush:

Blitzer: "Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?"

Sanford: "Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from."

• Ezra Klein: "Sanford, of course, can't come up with any significant difference because McCain has systematically wiped those differences out. Where he once opposed the President's tax cuts, he's flipped and now swears he'll make them permanent. His health care plan is pretty close to what Bush proposed in his 2006 State of the Union. He's stopped sponsoring cap and trade legislation. [...] But even if there are no substantive differences between McCain and Bush on economic policy, you'd think the McCain campaign would have prepared its major surrogates to argue otherwise. Their candidate's great weakness is his proximity to the most broadly disliked president in history. You might imagine the campaign would have come up with a few ways to try and talk to the electorate out of drawing that connection. You'd apparently be wrong."
• Amato: "What an embarrassment. Sanford started out by saying McCain was against the Bush/NAFTA position and then said they were the same. Thanks for justifying Obama's new ad. Sanford couldn't think of any because there really aren't any. He just Gramm'd himself..."
• Sudbay: "This is destined to be a classic in the annals of blowing one's chances to be V.P. -- not that it's really Mark Sanford's fault. It was really a trick question. There are no differences between Bush and McCain."

On the right side of the blogosphere, NRO's Kathleen Parker declares: "Scratch Mark Sanford from the McCain veepstakes."

OBAMA: That New Yorker Cover

Many conservative bloggers are critical of the controversial New Yorker cover illustration depicting the Obamas in Muslim terrorist garb:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over the New Yorker Obama cover on the right. The cartoon is intended to make fun of conservatives as ignorant racists, and essentially marginalize any criticism of Obama as moronic."
• NRO's Ed Morrissey: "Having this on the cover shouldn't just offend the Obamas, but also conservatives who have a number of substantial issues with Barack Obama. This makes the third bigoted attack from the Left on Obama. Two weeks ago, it was Ralph Nader acting as the arbiter of black authenticity, and last week it was Jesse Jackson wanting to castrate Obama. One side in this cycle certainly seems obsessed by identity politics, but so far it isn't the Republicans."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg, on the other hand, suggests that conservative magazines would approve of such a cover: "What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. [...] Of course, if we ran the exact same art, the consensus from the liberal establishment could be summarized in words like 'Swiftboating!' and, duh, 'racist.' It's a trite point, but nonetheless true that who says something often matters more than what is said -- and, obviously, that satire is in the eye of the beholder."

CBN's David Brody makes a similar point: "While The New Yorker may think [this] portrayal isn't accurate, Obama's critics on the right think the picture is spot on. I mean, this thing has 'copy and paste' written all over it. Expect to see this jpeg picture popping up in conservative emails everywhere."

OBAMA II: Nice Try, Liberal Media

Many conservative bloggers are criticizing what they perceive to be the New Yorker's dubious motives:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If Obama loses, the editors of The New Yorker would prefer to be able to blame it on 'paranoid fearmongering' rather than the public actually rejecting Obama on the basis of his positions or lack of experience. Inevitably, in response to this cover, we will hear several days of discussion about the cover, whether it was out of line or tasteless (yes), and what spurred this decision, etc., what Obama's actual ties to Islam are, what his ties to various shady donors are, his ties ot longtime supporters who tried to blow up the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, etc. Thus, if McCain wins, we will see someone -- probably in the pages of The New Yorker -- write, 'Of course the Republican smear artists fooled the American people into seeing a great man as a terrorist; Google the terms, "Obama," and "terrorist", and 80 bazillion links come up,' even though the context could just as easily be, 'Obama pledges to capture terrorists' 'New Yorker cover portrays Obama as terrorist' and 'McCain denounces New Yorker cover portraying Obama as a terrorist.'"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Obama isn't a Muslim, and his wife doesn't carry an AK-47. But Obama's long-time associations with anti-Americans like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Jeremiah Wright are not 'rumors' or 'misinformation.' Nor is it 'crazy ignorance' to note that Obama's candidacy was endorsed by Hamas (although Hamas later withdrew its endorsement when Obama tacked toward the center) or that his wife says America is 'just downright mean.' Obama doesn't want to deal with these very real issues, and prefers to respond to the straw man that he's a Muslim. The New Yorker tried to help him in that effort, apparently, but I doubt that it did him any good. That image of a flag burning in the fireplace hits uncomfortably close to the mark."

Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Some people are saying this cover is a parody of the image right-wingers have created of Barack Obama. Apparently, it's a 'political poster for conservatives to reinforce their messages'. Who knew the New Yorker was carrying water for us! Too bad this is both ridiculous and untrue. If Michelle was willing to tote a gun into the White House, I can guarantee she'd have a lot more support from us, lol."

OBAMA III: Enough About The Cover; Let's Talk About The Article

Other conservative bloggers are calling attention to the article itself (written by Ryan Lizza), which they believe casts Obama in an unflattering light:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Never mind the cover. This New Yorker column on Barack Obama should cause concern among the Obama campaign, as it further undermines the bogus notion that he is, in fact, a 'new brand of politician.' As you will see, what it exposes is an man fueled by ambition and opportunism."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Read the whole thing, and you will find that there are plenty of former Obama supporters who are now really disillusioned with him. You'll also find -- surprise! -- that contrary to popular opinion, Barack Obama is just another politician. Of course, if you don't share in the adulation of Barack Obama, the first person to criticize you for your reticence may well be...Barack Obama."
• Morrissey: "The article paints a picture of a political dilettante -- someone whose ambition outstripped his impulse to work. He got bored quickly of the state legislature and launched a disastrous run for Congress. He complained about politics but did nothing to change it. He ran for the Senate, and once there did almost nothing except prepare his run for the Presidency. The cover is hardly the worst of the article for Obama. They had better pray that people buy this issue of the New Yorker strictly for the pictures."

OBAMA IV: We're Not Laughing

Most liberal bloggers are critical of the New Yorker cover, which they consider a poor attempt at satire:

• Atrios: "It obviously was an attempt at satire, but it fails. It represents the basic stuff that you get from the Right about Obama, but it neither mocks nor exaggerates them. It's a sad state of affairs that conservatives are hard to satirize or parody because they're so insane, but that's where we are. The only context is that it's on the cover of the New Yorker and Everybody Knows That They're Good Liberals So It's Satire. But, look, whatever the merits of the New Yorker it's more 'elite chattering classes of New York' than 'good liberal.' Not quite the same thing, even if there's some overlap. [...] The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it. The cartoon could run as is on the cover of the National Review, also meaning to be 'funny' but with a different target."
• Benen: "Smear artists running a scurrilous right-wing magazine would presumably run the exact same image of the Obamas on their cover, too. That we know the New Yorker is poking fun hardly makes matters better."
• The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar: "Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign -- all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism -- well, here's your image."
• Drum: "To be honest, my first [reaction] was that it was kinda funny, a clever way of mocking all the conservative BS that's been circulating about the Obamas. But at the risk of seeming humorless, that reaction didn't last too long. Maybe it's because this kind of satire just doesn't work, no matter how well it's done. But mostly it's because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth -- implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama. So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless."

OBAMA V: Lieberman, Meet Hagel

Obama's online supporters are excited about the news that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will accompany Obama on his upcoming Iraq trip:

• Sullivan: "How fuck-you to McCain-Lieberman is that?"
• Ezra Klein: "Before this announcement, it was a pretty safe bet that the McCain campaign would hijack the media's coverage of Obama's visit with a lot of press releases about how many days it's been since Obama visited Iraq, and how much beachfront property McCain owns in Basra, and all the rest. Rather than being a political boost for Obama, it would almost certainly play into a media narrative about his weakness on Iraq. Now, the story will be that Obama is in Iraq, accompanied by a respected Republican Senator who happened to serve as co-chair of McCain's 2000 presidential run. That's a very, very different story, and a major coup for the Obama campaign."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Hagel's a great choice. Like McCain, Hagel served in Vietnam. But as a decorated Sergeant in the Army infantry, he likely came away with a much different perspective on the war than John McCain. [...] Obama and Hagel's trip to Iraq will present a tremendous opportunity not just for Obama's campaign specifically, but for the larger narrative about the reality in Iraq. As McCain stumps with Lieberman to perpetuate the original Iraq lie, two different Senators with a much firmer grasp on reality will see the conditions first-hand, and return to the States to a hungry audience. What they say and how they say it could bring us closer to finally ending this war."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Context Is Everything

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle critiques the New Yorker's controversial Obama cover:

"The image is satirical only because it appears on the cover of the New Yorker, which, we all know, is a right-thinking magazine read by right-thinking people who couldn't possibly be among the 10 percent of Americans who believe Obama's a Muslim. The New Yorker assumes everyone knows it's being ironic with its cover, sort of the way the white hipster in a gentrifying neighborhood assumes everyone knows he's being ironic when he wears a 'Stop Snitching' t-shirt. But put that image on the cover of National Review, or that t-shirt on a black person in a crime-infested neighborhood, and the message takes on a very different meaning."

LEST WE FORGET: No One In Group Admits Girls' Night Out A Colossal Failure

From The Onion:

"PROVIDENCE, RI -- After hyping the outing with several days of text messages, including 'things are going to get crazy,' 'the Bod Squad is back in action,' and 'OMG! GNO!,' friends Tina Zayac, Heather Thibert, and Christina Roath refused to admit Sunday that their girls' night out was a disappointment. 'It was fun,' said Thibert, 28, who returned to her apartment at 11:30 p.m., despite earlier promises to 'stay out all night' and 'get dolled up and get [her] dance on.' The girls reportedly waited for a table at Blue Grotto for more than an hour, chose not to get wine at the restaurant because it was too expensive, and concluded the evening by spending two hours at a karaoke bar trying to convince Roath to sing 'Total Eclipse Of The Heart' with them before ultimately deciding they weren't in the mood for karaoke. Thibert added, 'Just me and the girls, like old times. Even though Becky [Traber] didn't show up, cuz she always flakes out.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:28 PM

July 11, 2008

7/11: McCain's Rough Week (Or Not?)

We had never seen liberal bloggers attack John McCain quite so forcefully -- and on so many different topics -- as they did this week. From his questionable pledge to balance the budget by 2013, to his joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes, to his controversial remarks about Social Security, to Phil Gramm's comments about "a nation of whiners," McCain certainly gave his critics plenty of ammo. And the netroots took advantage of it, describing this as "the week that should have effectively ended [McCain's campaign]" while complaining (once again) that the press isn't being sufficiently critical of the GOP nominee.

And in case you wanted more evidence of our previous claim that bloggers and pundits appear to be watching two different campaigns, note that Time's Mark Halperin -- arguably the leading purveyor of conventional wisdom -- has concluded that it was McCain who "won the week". Who woulda thunk it?

MCCAIN: Worst Week Ever?

Contrary to the views of prominent political commentators such as Halperin, liberal bloggers believe that McCain had a terrible week:

• The Huffington Post's Max Bergmann: "This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers. During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him."
• Digby: "McCain has had a very bad week. [...] His fans in the media seem to be treating this gaffe-fest as if it's their avuncular old neighbor just popping off after having a few too many brewskis, but I would think the voters might become alarmed if this continues. (His comment about social security should be a deal breaker among the senior citizens, many of whom are already skeptical of his abilities and I hope the Democrats play it incessantly during the campaign.)"
• Mark Kleiman: "Not a good week for McCain. [...] How long do you think McCain's base in the press corps will keep covering up for him?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "McCain's campaign is out-of-control. If McCain didn't have so many friends in the media protecting him, this thing would be over. It's a joke, albeit a joke with a lot of money. With McCain's campaign spiraling, expect the GOP attacks on [Barack] Obama to get uglier and nastier. That's their only option. And, the Repubs will have the money to do it."

On the right side of the blogosphere, The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett agrees that McCain had a rough week: "That sound you've been hearing all day is me hitting my head in Boston with a baseball bat, trying to forget all the silly things the McCain campaign has done this week. First, McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina engaged in some freelance idiocy as she riffed on abortion. Next the candidate himself made some intemperate remarks about social security and killing Iranians. The former will almost surely come back in the form of an Obama advertisement in the fall, and may even surpass '100 years' as McCain's biggest misstatement of 2008. Now, ranking McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm has told America to stop whining about the economy while pronouncing the country in the throes of a 'mental recession.' Brilliant."

MCCAIN II: Quit Yer Bellyachin'!

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain's chief economic adviser -- ex-TX Sen./UBS Vice Chairman Phil Gramm -- for claiming that the nation's economic downturn is mostly psychological and that the U.S. has become "a nation of whiners":

"'You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,' he said [...] 'We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet.'

'We have sort of become a nation of whiners,' he said. 'You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline' despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said. [...]

'Misery sells newspapers,' Mr. Gramm said. 'Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.'"

• Ezra Klein: "Hear that America? That job you lost? That house that got foreclosed? It's all in your head..."
• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "Yep, those high gas prices, increased energy costs, skyrocketing food prices and shortages worldwide, and all the resulting belt-tightening? It's just mental according to Foreclosure Phil, because of that whopping 1 percent jiggered, anemic growth rate he touts. Oh, boo yah, what...a...success. [...] Having trouble making ends meet, even when you and your spouse are working two jobs each? You are just a whiner. Isn't that nice to know? Thanks, Phil!"
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Clearly, the problem here is not that record numbers of people are losing their homes or the stock market's tanking. It's that Reuters and other news outlets, traders in misery, have the audacity to inform people about it. And if you don't like your Republican economy and say so, America, well...you're just a nation of ungrateful complainers! Or so says the man who's mentioned as McCain's pick for treasury secretary, and who's a former lobbyist suspiciously neck deep in the mortgage meltdown. Suck it up, shut up and carry on. Ya whiners. It's the Republican way."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Well, so much for Steve Schmidt bringing some much needed discipline to team McCain, eh? First came John McCain's comments on Social Security (which, credit where credit is due, was some actual straight talk, which is why he's now, like clockwork, 'seeking to clarify' his comments.) Now, there's these mind-numbingly out of touch and condescending comments from top McCain economic advisor, Phil Gramm about how the economic downturn is all in our heads. [...] Now, Gramm is not saying anything that John McCain himself hasn't said before but that was back in April before the candidate was most likely reprimanded by his handlers for saying what he actually thinks because for McCain, the truth is politically toxic."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "So after eight years of disastrous Republican policies, all the McCain campaign has to offer is a blame-the-victim, suck-it-up attack on average Americans. I'm sure a continuation of George Bush's tax cuts -- ya know, the ones that used to offend McCain's conscience -- will get us back on the right track. Then we can all stop 'whining' about losing our homes and altering our lifestyles."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Sometimes, the McCain campaign seems anxious to make the Dems' campaign efforts easier. I wonder what the reaction will be when Dems go to, say, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and tell them, 'John McCain's top economic advisor thinks people who are concerned about the economy are "whiners," and that the economic downturn is all in our heads.'"
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "Oh, Phil Gramm. Whatever will Ma'n'Pa America think when they turn on their teevee at night and find out that you've just called them 'whiners'?"

MCCAIN III: His Chief Economic Adviser Doesn't Speak For Him On Economic Matters?

Liberal bloggers aren't satisfied by McCain's efforts to distance himself from Gramm's comments:

• Beeton: "So he's distancing himself from comments about the economy made by his own economic advisor? If you can't take Gramm's comments as a reflection of McCain's economic policy, then whose can you take? Isn't that what a top economic advisor's job is?"
• Benen: "While one assumes that McCain will continue to insist that he appreciates just how much working families are struggling, and doesn't agree with Gramm's remarks at all, there's McCain's own record of rhetoric to deal with. In January, McCain said the problems with the economy are in our heads: 'A lot of this is psychological. A lot of it's psychological. Because I agree the fundamentals of our economy is still strong.' And in April, McCain said, '[A] lot of our problems today are psychological.' He said he intended to give voters 'a little psychological boost,' in lieu of a meaningful policy. And in June, McCain said he's still focused on the 'psychological impact' of various policies. For that matter, let's not forget that McCain's policy record reflects this elitist thinking. Because McCain believes our systemic economic problems are psychological, it leads him to oppose minimum-wage increases, and support hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Poor Gramm. His good friend McCain has turned on him, and for saying the very same things that McCain himself had said! [...] All Phil Gramm did wrong was follow the lead set by John McCain."

Several liberal bloggers disputed McCain's claim that Gramm "does not speak for me" by observing that Gramm did, in fact, speak for McCain at a meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board yesterday:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "McCain says today that Phil Gramm doesn't speak for him when he calls the United States a 'nation of whiners' suffering from a 'mental recession' but today is also the day that McCain sent Phil Gramm to speak for him to the Wall Street Journal editorial board. There whole question of whether or not the current economic downturn is real or else some kind of mass hallucination doesn't strike me as a minor economic policy issue -- if McCain doesn't agree with his top economics surrogates about it, he probably needs a new team."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "It might be a good idea for McCain to get himself a top economic adviser who does represent his views in situations such as meetings with the edit boards of powerful newspapers."

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Gramm is one of McCain's most important economic advisors. There are already more than enough reasons why he's unsuited for that job, ranging from his role in the Enron, S&L, and subprime crises to his employment by, and lobbying for, a company presently under criminal investigation. What he said today pales in comparison to other things he's done. If we're very, very lucky, he might have just taken himself out of contention for Treasury Secretary. But he should never have been there to begin with."

MCCAIN IV: Fine, Punish Him For Telling The Truth

Most conservative bloggers believe that Gramm was telling the truth when he said that the nation's economic downturn is mostly psychological:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Phil Gramm tells the truth, with predictable consequences."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I've been saying for several years the same thing Gramm said. Granted, the economy was far better two years ago than it is now, but even now, it is far better than it has during all of the 1970s and even much of the 1980s and 1990s. At the beginning of this year, in a blog entry, I even matched Gramm's tone: He called Americans 'whiners,' while I called them 'spoiled'. I still say I was right."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Democrats call Gramm out of touch for calling the US a 'nation of whiners'. It may be politically inapt in an election year, but the description isn't far wrong. [...] Growth remains positive and unemployment remains in the range of historical average of 5.5%. Contrast that to the economy of Jimmy Carter, when unemployment, inflation, and interest rates all went out of control -- and even that was nothing next to the Depression. Whiners? You bet. [...] I'd say that Gramm diagnoses the problem with accuracy, and that the Democrats should own up to their affliction."

Barnett was one of the few conservative bloggers to dispute Gramm's contention: "Contra Gramm, there are fundamental problems with the economy that have given the American people a serious case of agita. [...] The causes of the insecurity are real, and the diminishment of the typical American's economic situation is equally real. What makes the McCain camp's antics this week all the more mysterious is there's no reason why McCain has to reflexively defend the status quo. What's more, doing so goes against all of his principles. Remember back in the primary season when McCain commented that some people on Wall Street had to go to jail and demonized the pharmaceuticals? That's the real McCain, and while not a particularly attractive McCain to these eyes, it's also likely to be a more successful McCain."

MCCAIN V: Not Smart, Phil

While most conservative bloggers believe that Gramm's basic point was correct, they also believe that his remarks were politically foolish:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "I like Phil Gramm and would certainly prefer a Gramm for president campaign to, uh, our current situation. I think Gramm as treasury secretary is one of the strongest pro-McCain arguments. I even agree with what I take to be Gramm's point: some of our economic woes are exaggerated and the very economic dynamism that creates financial instability also makes us better off overall. But it's politically boneheaded to tell middle- and working-class families whose income growth has stagnated -- the very people whose votes McCain needs to win if he is to have a prayer in this election -- to stop their whining. That's fine for columnists, but not a very smart move for someone associated with a presidential campaign that already fails to connect with people's economic concerns."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Of course, every economic downturn has a psychological component attached to it, but this is, at the very least, bad politics. [...] McCain would understandably be upset by this gaffe, as it serves to take the focus away from the Jesse Jackson story. It also takes the focus off of the recent news that McCain's fundraising is doing well. What is more, it hurts McCain on the economy -- an issue he can ill afford to take a hit on."

AmSpec Blog's J.P. Freire thinks McCain should have handled the controversy differently: "If there's one example of how the McCain campaign has no capability of controlling a news cycle, it's this one. McCain's response to the outrage shouldn't have been throwing Gramm aside, but instead coopting his message into a 'straight talk' moment. Knowing that everyone's favorite meme is 'his campaign is out of control,' how could McCain give the press another opportunity to talk about it? Instead, if he jumps on the opportunity to talk about the economy and show his chops, he could have had the media cycle focusing on his economic plan."

MCCAIN VI: Are You Listening, Seniors?

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize McCain for his controversial remarks about Social Security, and they are not satisfied by McCain's defense of his comments:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I can see the McCain campaign is cleverly trying to bury the furor over the candidate's Social Security 'disgrace' comments by having Phil Gramm claim that we're in the midst of a psychosomatic recession. But I'm not so easily thrown off the scent. [...] What McCain believes is no different from what President Bush and others did and do believe when they wanted to phase out Social Security and replace it with a system of private investment accounts. He's just been a bit clumsier about hiding what he's pushing for. The debate about Social Security is the same as it was in 2005 and in most respects the same as it was in 1965. You have one group who believe in the current system -- which is an intergenerational bargain, insuring a baseline level of retirement security as well as insurance against premature, disability and for dependent children. The other side -- McCain's side -- thinks this is just wrong, morally and economically. And in its place they want to create a system of individual private investment accounts -- similar to a lifetime 401k. That's the essence of the debate. And no one should be deceived by McCain's own efforts to twist and spin his own words retrospectively."
• Benen: "McCain was describing a pay-as-you-go system as an 'absolute disgrace.' The words are clear, plain, and unambiguous. And lest anyone think McCain just got confused on Monday, the next day he appeared on CNN and reiterated the exact same sentiment. [...] As far as I can tell, reporters seem to think, 'Well, we knew what he meant, so this isn't a huge deal.' This is crazy. For one thing, it's not reporters' job to reinterpret what a candidates says in order to make the comments less controversial. For another, reporters knew what Wesley Clark meant -- as well as what Obama meant when he said he'd continue to 'refine' his Iraq policies -- but that didn't stop them from manufacturing a media frenzy for no reason. Look, Social Security matters. It's arguably the most popular and successful government program in American history. John McCain a) wants to privatize it; b) doesn't understand how it works; and c) can't talk about it without contradicting himself. I'm probably being overly optimistic, but I still think this matters, and may very well have an effect on Election Day."
• hilzoy: "It was one thing when George W. Bush didn't know the names of various foreign leaders in 2000. It would, of course, have been better if he had, but he had, after all, been a governor, not a diplomat, and it's easy to see how someone who hadn't had to deal with foreign affairs day in and day out might not recall the name of the President of Chechnya off the top of his head, even if he had been trying hard to learn such things. This is different. [...McCain] is a Senator. It's his job to know about things like Social Security."

MCCAIN VII: Tuzla-Gate, Meet NFL-Gate

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for telling a new version of his P.O.W. story in which he substituted one NFL team for another. McCain has previously said that he named the Green Bay Packers' offensive line when his Vietnamese interrogators ordered him to name his squadron mates. Yesterday, however, McCain told a Pittsburgh audience that he named the Pittsburgh Steelers' defensive line, not the Packers' O-line. ABC's Jake Tapper reports:

"Yesterday in Pittsburgh, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., professed his love for the Steelers to KDKA-TV. [...He] told a rather moving story about his time as a P.O.W. 'When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, physical pressures on me, I named the starting lineup, defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates.'

'Did you really?' asked the reporter.

'Yes,' McCain said. [...]

'Could you do it today?' asked the reporter.

'No, unfortunately,' McCain said.

Here's one reason he likely couldn't do it today -- the Steelers aren't the team whose defensive line McCain named for his Vietnamese tormentors. The Green Bay Packers are. At least according to every previous time McCain has told this story. And the McCain campaign just told ABC News that the senator made a mistake -- it was, indeed, the Packers."

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There really should be a special place reserved in political candidate purgatory for politicians who lie about supporting the local sports team in order to curry favor. [...] Not only is McCain talking about a subject about which he clearly doesn't know much, and not only is he clearly using his time in a P.O.W. camp as a way to win votes, but he is blatantly pandering to people on an issue that, for many voters, has real emotional intensity behind it. Hopefully, more than just Jake Tapper will call McCain for pandering to 'the sports.' Many fans, especially those of teams who have struggled for a long time, can really grow angry at fair-weather pandering of this sort."
• Sudbay: "Does anyone else find this incident in Pittsburgh disturbing? Before anyone rushes to defend McCain's heroism, this isn't about McCain the P.O.W. This is about McCain the candidate in 2008. McCain has every right to tell the story of his P.O.W. experience on the campaign trail. But, it's another thing when he changes the story to adapt to the particular battleground state where he's telling the story."
• Digby: "Recall that Hillary Clinton was excoriated mercilessly for many years for allegedly lying when she said she'd been both a Cubs fan and a Yankees fan. This was shown to be accurate and provable, but it didn't matter. All politicians are held to an entirely different standard than those who were held in Vietnamese prison camps. They are allowed to just make stuff up whenever they choose. It's a sign of their good character and patriotism. And imagine if Obama were caught in a pander this crude? (Or a memory gap this huge.) The man can't even ask for a glass of orange juice in Pennsylvania without it being considered a sign of his 'inauthenticity.' If he made a mistake like thisMorning Joe and Tweety would be drooling and speaking in tongues about what a disgusting flip-flopping kiss ass he was."

MCCAIN VIII: Awwwkward...

ThinkProgress' Matt Corley reports:

"Earlier this week, one of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) top advisers, Carly Fiorina, argued for McCain's free-market approach to health care by noting that 'there are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication' and that many 'women would like a choice.' But, as ThinkProgress noted, Fiorina's argument was undermined by McCain's 2003 vote against legislation that would have required insurance coverage of prescription birth control. When asked about the disconnect on his campaign bus today, McCain nervously replied, 'I certainly do not want to discuss that issue'."

A video of McCain's stumbling answer was shown on yesterday's episode of MSNBC's Morning Joe, and it's quickly making it's way around the liberal blogosphere:

• SilentPatriot: "After being asked a question on the 'Suck Up Express' yesterday about his position on insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control, McCain became visibly uncomfortable and was unable to reconcile his past vote against requiring the coverage of birth control with a statement one of his top advisers made just earlier this week. [...] Imagine if Barack Obama had been stumped like this. It would have been the story of the day, with the blaring headline: Obama Stumbles On Key Women's Issue; Will He Lose Their Support? Then talking head after talking head would be paraded on television to lecture seriously about Obama's 'women problem' and whether or not this will doom his chances at winning them over."
• The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney: "How damaging is this video, now spreading around the web, showing John McCain squirming, stumbling, and then claiming ignorance about his position on providing women with birth control? Apparently, very damaging. A Democratic Party strategist familiar with internal polling said McCain's two votes against requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control have been polled in battleground states and had tremendous resonance with women, including independents and Republicans."
• TAPPED's Paul Waldman: "What's notable is that it isn't just that McCain doesn't have a well thought-out policy, but that he can't even seem to figure out what he thinks."

OBAMA: The Arrogance!

Conservative bloggers continue to blast Obama for his comments about bilingualism:

• NRO's John Derbyshire: "Obama's idiotic suggestion that all our kids should learn Spanish is, amongst other things (this is multi-dimensional stupidity) an illustration of educational romanticism run amok. [...] Obama suffers from the fallacy -- extremely common among high-IQ lefties -- that everyone else is just as smart as he is, or could easily be made so with a few educational reforms. In fact, below some cutoff point, which I'd guess at around minus one standard deviation in IQ (that would encompass sixteen percent of the population), education beyond the three R's is a waste of time, and foreign-language instruction a total waste of time."
• NRO's Roger Clegg: "Obama does not deny that immigrants should learn English, but he's clearly dismissive of those who think it's a big deal or even merits any attention as a public policy matter, and suggests that the bigger deal is that more Americans don't learn Spanish, and other foreign languages. Now, not only is his manner the predictably effete 'Can-you-believe-these-yahoos who-can't-speak-French-and-who-think-people-should-speak-English?,' but his point is ludicrous and dangerous. If a fat, rich American goes to Paris and can't speak French, that's too bad but it is no tragedy. When a child growing up in America, or anyone who wants to live here and get ahead, doesn't learn English, that IS a tragedy."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "It's not just that Barack is telling us to 'make sure your child can speak Spanish'. He's also been expressing embarrassment that Americans can't speak French when they go to Europe. When it comes to the latter, set aside the obvious elitism in his assumption that regular Americans have lots of either the time or money requried to do the transcontinental travel that he, apparently, is so familiar with. Listen instead to the audience in the background -- the laughter as Barack critiques Americans' linguistic shortcomings. [...It] is derisive...a frequent default posture of the left, enjoying a contemptuous laugh at the expense of the hicks and the rubes who 'embarrass' sophisticates with their monolingualism, their proud pro-Americanism, their religiosity, their lapel flags and the like. It's remarkable to me that anyone can find anything 'unifying' about this kind of discourse."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How McCain Can Right The Ship

Dem consultant Jeremy Rosner analyzes McCain's campaign problems (via Daniel Strauss):

"I think John McCain faces a deeper problem than staff shakeups which is that he hasn't figured out a political strategy. [...] A lot of people have noted he's just very incoherently between the right and the center, between offshore drilling and $300 million prizes for new electric batteries. [...] He just hasn't figured out a strategy for being a presidential candidate. My advice is that he needs to sort of place a clear bet on whether he's trying to do another Karl Rove base consolidation strategy or whether he's truly trying to gun for the middle and change the Republican party -- he just hasn't figured that out. Until he does that he's not going to solve the sense of inauthenticity that he's suddenly stumbled into, he's not going to solve the staff shakeups and everything else."

LEST WE FORGET: Probably Not The Answer She Was Expecting...

From Overheard in the Office:

Shoe store girl #1: You look tired all the time.
Shoe store girl #2: Well, I think it's my allergies. I'm allergic to cats and I like to rub mine on my face all the time.
Shoe store girl #1: Oh.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:12 PM

July 10, 2008

7/10: It's Hard Out Here For A Nominee

Yesterday we observed that the netroots were upset that journalists weren't discussing John McCain's recent remarks about Social Security, in which he appeared to describe the program's pay-as-you-go funding mechanism as "a disgrace." Well, following a DNC conference call in which various advocates and experts blasted McCain for his comments, several news organizations reported on the controversy. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to savage McCain for his remarks, portraying him as shockingly ignorant of how the nation's biggest social program works. They're also arguing that McCain has made "a campaign-changing mistake" and "handed his opponent a rhetorical gift".

Still, it certainly can't be said that Barack Obama is having a better day in the blogosphere than McCain. Obama's vote in favor of the controversial FISA bill -- while expected -- was met with sharp criticism by the netroots. Markos Moulitsas calls it "a move borne out of fear":

"He or his advisors (or both) decided that they'd rather capitulate on the issue than face GOP attack ads claiming Obama is weak on national security. They let fear of political attacks (that are inevitable anyway) override respect for the Constitution and even his prior promises to the American people. The press insists on calling it a 'move to the center', but really, it was a move borne out of fear. It wasn't an ideological decision (i.e. a 'move to the center'), but a tactical one. It was a strategic retreat."

Although they share Obama's support of the FISA bill, conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for reversing himself in such an obvious manner. They are also delighting in the fact that Obama's FISA vote has driven a wedge between the Dem nominee and his online supporters. Will Obama's frayed relationship with the netroots hurt his fundraising numbers, as some on the right have suggested?

MCCAIN: A Campaign-Changing Mistake?

Liberal bloggers continue to hammer McCain for calling the Social Security system "a disgrace" because current workers pay for retirees' benefits (which we detailed yesterday):

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "McCain: Social Security Is 'An Absolute Disgrace'. [...] How about this for a disgrace: You're running for president and you apparently don't understand that the system -- arguably the most successful ever delivered by the federal government -- was set up to run precisely this way more than half a century ago. [...] Every time McCain opens his mouth these days, he seems to be expressing either ignorance or disdain (or an impatient combination, as when he got flippy with questioners who discovered he didn't know the price of gas). And it should prove interesting to see how McCain's abhorrence of Social Security -- and his plan to 'fix' it (or eliminate it?)-- plays with one of the few demographics he dominates: senior citizens, most of whose lives are undoubtedly eased by this absolutely disgraceful program."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current workers pay into the system to provide benefits for retirees, and when those workers retire, the next generation will pay their benefits. That's what Social Security is. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. If McCain wants to argue that privatization is a good idea, fine. He's wrong, but we can have the debate (again). But it appears that McCain is desperately in need of some kind of remedial Government 101 education, because he literally described the Social Security system as a 'total disgrace.' [...] If the Obama campaign and the DNC don't take advantage of this, they're missing a huge opportunity. McCain has made a campaign-changing mistake."
• dday: "If John McCain wanted to throw the election, he certainly handed his opponent a rhetorical gift. [...] When McCain calls the functional way that Social Security has worked for 75 years a disgrace, what you can conclude is that he wants to destroy the system. He's on the record as favoring private accounts, even in this bear market. We know all the reasons why that is so, not the least of which is that it would be a trilion-dollar present for the financial services industry. [...] Surely the DNC or the Obama campaign is tracking all of these town hall meetings. They now have, on tape, John McCain calling for the destruction of Social Security. You could DO SOMETHING with that."
• Avedon: "McCain thinks the problem with Social Security is that it's Social Security."
• AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, writing on the Huffington Post: "John McCain admits that he doesn't know a lot about the economy. Now we also learn that he doesn't know a lot about Social Security."
• Ezra Klein: "Everyone's quoting [McCain's statement], but I think the point of it is getting a bit lost: According to this comment, until today, or possibly sometime this week, John McCain did not know how Social Security worked. Just did not know. Wasn't aware. He seems to believe that at some other point in history, retiree benefits were paid for through taxes contributed by former workers, or possibly the retirees themselves. But, as Dean Baker says, 'present-day retirees have always been paid their benefits from the taxes paid by current workers. That has been true from Social Security's inception.' And it would remain true, incidentally, in the partial privatization plans that McCain and other conservatives favor: Those plans would still see Social Security funded out of payroll taxes, with current workers subsidizing current retirees."

MCCAIN II: You Call That An Explanation?

For much of yesterday, liberal bloggers were upset that the press had yet to question McCain about his remarks:

• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "What I don't understand is why reporters don't ask: If Senator McCain doesn't want payroll taxes to fund Social Security (as has long been the case), then how does he propose to pay for it?"
• TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "Let's be generous to McCain and assume that the 'that' which is an 'absolute disgrace' is the impending zero point toward which Social Security is purportedly tending. [...] But still, even then, where is scrutiny of the claim that Social Security is in jeopardy? When Bush made such ridiculous claims in 2005, he spent all his political capital and then some. Why is McCain getting this pass? When the Straight Talk Express makes so many such stops, when does it become the Straight Talk Local? Why isn't this A Story? The Gaffe of the Week? Breaking News? A Clip to Be Rebroadcast Endlessly?"

Later in the day, ABC's Jake Tapper asked the McCain camp whether the senator was referring to the Social Security system itself when he said "it's an absolute disgrace":

"I asked the McCain campaign what Sen. McCain was referring to with the word 'disgrace.'

McCain spox Brian Rogers says that 'the disgrace is our failure to fix the long-run imbalance in Social Security -- a failure of leadership evidenced by our willingness to kick to problem to the next generation of leaders. He's also describing the looming and increasing demographic pressures confronting the Social Security system and Washington's utter failure to address it.' [...]

So, according to the McCain campaign, the senator was trying to explain how the system works but cut it short before describing the demographic pressures -- as he did in the August 2007 speech. That long-term imbalance and Washington's failure to fix it is the disgrace, he meant to say, the McCain campaign suggests."

TPM's Josh Marshall doesn't buy Rogers' explanation of McCain's comments, noting that this is not the only time that McCain has made this argument: "Everybody has words come out the wrong way sometimes, or they say things they don't really quite mean. IN other words, if it's just tripping over your words, who cares. But digital video recording is a wonderful thing. And that's why we can know pretty clearly that Rogers' explanation is bogus and that this is precisely what McCain meant. The townhall meeting where McCain said Social Security was 'an absolute disgrace' was on Monday in Denver. Just yesterday McCain went on CNN and said more or less exactly the same thing on CNN. In response to a question from CNN's John Roberts, McCain said, 'Let's describe it [i.e. Social Security] for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it.' He doesn't use the flamethrower language of 'absolute disgrace' but he says very clearly that what's wrong with Social Security -- 'why it's broken' -- is the way it was designed to work and has worked for almost 80 years, because it's a pay-as-you-go system, 'pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees.' In other words, there's no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work. Sometimes he just uses more flowery language than others."

MCCAIN III: That's Embarrassing

On Monday, the McCain camp released a statement signed by 300 economists who "enthusiastically support" his economic plan. However, Politico's Alexander Burns and Avi Zenilman report that many of those economist "don't actually support the whole of McCain's economic agenda":

"Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don't actually support the whole of McCain's economic agenda. And at least one doesn't even support McCain for president.

In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain's economic plan, many were unfamiliar with -- or downright opposed to -- key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions."

Liberal bloggers, of course, are buzzing about the Politico's discovery:

• Ezra Klein: "This fits into a broader problem for the McCain campaign which is that their economic policy shop is terribly inept. Their numbers don't add up. Their statements contradict each other. They can't even release a letter without falling face first into the mud. To some degree, this is Doug Holtz-Eakin not doing a very good job. But the broader problem is that the candidate doesn't know much about economics and so didn't know how to staff his economic team, and has no idea how to reform it into something that stops causing problems for his campaign."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It turns out that [the economists] merely signed on to a brief statement of intent (low taxes, low spending, free trade, etc.), not the 15-page number-free plan that McCain released on Monday. So there's no telling how much of his plan they actually support. [...] Somebody who's not me ought to start dialing up the other 280+ signatories and find out just how much of McCain's plan they really support. Do they think the current Social Security funding mechanism is a disgrace? Are they in favor of a gas tax holiday? Do they think his multi-trillion tax cut will increase revenues? Inquiring minds want to know."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: "One reason for the tepid support: The document itself is pretty vague and the McCain economics team had begun circulating it some months ago, as an affirmation of a broad conservative approach to economics. (Some of the signatories had forgotten all about it and didn't even know the statement had been released, until Politico contacted them.) Another reason, surely, is that many economists -- even many conservative economists -- have serious qualms about the McCain agenda, which pairs more tax reductions with vague, utterly unrealistic promises to cut spending. That's a formula for incurring huge deficits and growing the national debt to more onerous levels."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias sarcastically writes: "There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that this scandal will dominate the cable news coverage of the campaign to an even greater extent than did coverage of Wesley Clark observing that being a POW is not the same as running the country. After all, the McCain campaign is lying here. And lying about their campaign's macroeconomic policies, which is a very consequential matter. So this is going to be a huge story on teevee, right? Of course it will."

OBAMA: Stop Criticizing Him? Are You Serious?

Yesterday, Daily Kos diarist HatchInBrooklyn wrote a popular diary defending Obama's support of the controversial FISA bill: "The FISA bill is obviously imperfect, but I do not believe that a serious Presidential candidate can afford to vote 'no' on legislation that is intended to help prevent terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain -- who didn't even bother to show up and vote today -- a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism. The 'Obama turning rightward' media coverage has gone on long enough as it is. We don't need to fan the flames of that storyline anymore. Respectfully, I ask Mike Stark to change the name of his MyBO group [which is named "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity -- Get FISA Right"]. I am all for having a MyBO group that expresses the feelings of Obama's progressive supporters. But I hope that it will not remain a group whose only purpose is to criticize Obama for voting the way that I believe he absolutely had to on the overall FISA bill."

Open Left's Chris Bowers criticized HatchInBrooklyn's post, arguing that Stark's MyBO group has played a valuable role in forcing Obama to respond to the concerns of the Dem base: "I have to wonder why hundreds of people on Daily Kos would desire for people to leave a group that is critical of Obama from the left. This is to effectively ask Obama supporters to stop asking things from Obama. The inability of some to tolerate any criticism of Barack Obama is pretty depressing. Since the end of the primary season, Mike Stark's group is the only proven means of making Obama answer criticism from the left. It is also the only proven mechanism for making Obama actually self-identify as a progressive. To shut down the group would be to effectively shut down any hopes of having Obama actually address the concerns of what he calls his 'friends on the left.' The desire to see such a group disappear is thus functionally the equivalent of desiring to end criticism of Obama from the left. That's not something I would like to see, and reminds me more of the DLC than of the progressive netroots."

MyDD's Josh Orton disputed HatchInBrooklyn's claim that Obama had to support the FISA bill: "No. No no no no no. No. Democrats must always stand against Republicans on national security -- because Republicans have proven miserable failures on national security, and yet still try to politically intimidate Democrats by painting them as weaklings yearning to surrender. It's precisely why Barack Obama deserves credit for opposing the war in Iraq. It's why [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold deserves credit for casting the sole vote against the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. And, because the American people don't like to be fooled twice, it's why most of our fellow citizens no longer fear a terrorist attack and favor ending the war in Iraq. There is more than one possible justification for voting the way Obama did on FISA, but this is quite possibly the worst."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to slam Obama for his vote in favor of the FISA bill:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I can't count the number of emails I've received demanding that I stop criticizing Obama for his support of this bill on the ground that such criticisms harm his chances for winning -- as though it's the fault of those who point out what Obama is doing, rather than Obama himself for completely reversing his position, abandoning his clear, prior commitments, and helping to institutionalize the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the concealment of Bush crimes."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "[Obama] or his advisors (or both) decided that they'd rather capitulate on the issue than face GOP attack ads claiming Obama is weak on national security. They let fear of political attacks (that are inevitable anyway) override respect for the Constitution and even his prior promises to the American people. The press insists on calling it a 'move to the center', but really, it was a move borne out of fear. It wasn't an ideological decision (i.e. a 'move to the center'), but a tactical one. It was a strategic retreat. Like all retreats, this one came with a price. Much of his veneer as a transformational politician has faded. He's a gifted and inspirational politician, no doubt about that, and he will make a great president. But at the end of the day, he's a politician, with all the triangulating goodness that's become a hallmark of our presidential candidates. That has cost him some intensity of support, some bad headlines, a new avenue of attack for Republicans."

OBAMA II: You've Got To Make Him Vote The Right Way

While the netroots are harshly criticizing Obama and other Congressional Dems who voted in favor of the FISA bill, some are emphasizing the necessity of creating a political climate in which Dems are compelled to oppose this type of legislation:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Today's FISA vote was not a surprise. We've been fighting this battle for a long time, and will continue to fight it. But I hope it abolished once and for all the idea that our leaders are going to 'lead' on this issue without encouragement to do so. Barack Obama and others will be great on this stuff when there is a reason for them to be great -- when the public comes together in a meaningful way and provides the political climate where it becomes the wise thing to do. We're not there yet. To make it happen, we need to reward those who were with us. We need to punish those who stood against us. We need to recruit and support primary challengers, and help those people with the tools they need to run winning races that don't rely on being in the good graces of the political establishment."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I hate, hate, hate the FISA bill. I hate, hate, hate that Obama voted for it and its cloture motion. The fact that he voted for the three amendments (1, 2, 3) is some consolation, but not nearly enough. [...] In case anyone is interested in my take on the 'punish him?' question, I will do whatever I can to help him get elected. Heck, I maxed out for [John] Kerry, and he was a much worse candidate. I will also devote some energy to electing better Congresspeople, and keep trying to convince people that this matters. In the long run, a citizenry who care enough about the Bill of Rights that this vote would have been a political disaster is the best guarantee I can think of that this will not happen again. [James] Madison did not count on the virtues of politicians, and neither do I."

OBAMA III: Where's Your Hope And Change Now, Netroots?

Conservative bloggers are delighting in the fact that Obama damaged his relationship with the netroots by reversing his position on FISA:

• Michelle Malkin: "The heartbroken nutroots are foaming at the mouth. Hoist, meet petard."
• Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein: "Obamalot is beginning to look a lot like any other pedestrian political clubhouse, with our self-styled 'progressive' hero King taking steps to insulate himself from the very kind of progressive stances that will almost certainly hurt him among moderate voters, should Maverick Johnny choose to exploit them."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I'd just like to note something. There were two Senators who were serious Democratic Presidential candidates, and they both voted on FISA. One of them voted against telecom immunity -- a matter of extreme importance to the netroots -- all the way down the line (and despite the fact that Democrats in Congress have assessed the public mood, and have clearly decided that the bill must be passed). The other voted against it...except for the final vote, which is the only one that the population will actually care about. In other words, we have a case of actual integrity versus equivocation. The funny part is that the netroots went with the equivocator. Barack Obama brazenly lied to them about his intent to filibuster FISA, and they support him anyway. And now they have to go give him some more money, so that he can lie to them some more. Funny, I don't recall Hillary Clinton being nearly as bad in that regard this election cycle."

Meanwhile, Commentary's Jennifer Rubin criticizes Obama for not supporting the earlier FISA compromise: "Let's review what Obama did. He and his Democratic colleagues opposed, objected and delayed passage of a FISA extension for months. This left a void, a gap, in intelligence collection. Whatever communications we didn't catch are lost and whatever data we could have used to protect Americans is gone. The terrorists aren't going to be calling back to recap their communications over the last few months. So it wasn't just that Obama took a position which appealed to the Left in the primary, and then reversed course in the general election. It was that he did so at the expense of the national security of the country."

OBAMA IV: Way To Go, Jesse!

Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized to Obama after making "critical and crude comments...in which he accused Mr. Obama of 'talking down to black people.'" Conservative bloggers believe that Obama is likely to benefit from this incident:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "It's clear to me that old-school 'civil rights leaders' like Jackson and [Rev. Al] Sharpton feel threatened and jealous of Obama. But rather than be a problem for Obama, this is actually an opportunity. Jackson and Sharpton have long ago lost any claim to legitimacy that they might have once had. In fact, picking a fight with Jackson would probably benefit Obama. I've personally heard Republicans tell me that the good thing about having Obama win is that it would officially end the reign of Jackson and Sharpton."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'That helps Obama' was my first thought. I imagine that Obama is more of a draw to the Left now and some conservatives will have the thought that anyone who can tick off Jesse Jackson can't be that bad (and if it's on issues like fatherhood, especially so). He is that bad, but, casual impressions may be all this election is decided on."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Jackson may have done Obama a bit of a favor. Mainstream America has long distrusted Jackson, and anything that puts distance between him and Obama can only help support Obama's status as a member of the new generation of black politicians."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that Jackson is wrong to suggest that Obama "talk[s] down to black people"; rather, they believe that Obama talks down to all people:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "In the midst of a vulgar tirade, Jesse Jackson accused Barack Obama of 'talking down to black people'. Come off it. Heck, as even Democrats have said, Barack talks down to (or about) lots of people of all races on a regular basis. This of course includes those 'bitter' people in Pennsylvania and any American who isn't bilingual. Let's hope it will reassure Jesse Jackson to know that Barack's condescension is absolutely color-blind."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama talks down to everyone, regardless of skin color. Remember, every time you visit a country where you don't know the language, you embarrass him."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Against Personal Virtue

Ezra Klein is not a fan of the effort to make this year's Democratic National Convention "the most sustainable ever":

"Like Matt [Yglesias], I think trying to run a carbon neutral convention is a dumb idea. The more Democrats present their environmentalism as a call for personal austerity or individual rectitude, the less likely they are to succeed. But that's not what a cap and trade proposal does. It's a market-based attempt to accurately price carbon in products, so that the economic incentives naturally point in a direction that doesn't end up scorching the planet. It's not about banning meat or keeping people from driving. It's just about eliminating the silent subsidy that makes meat, gas, and other elements of a carbon-intensive lifestyle look much cheaper than they really are. But the key here is that cap and trade won't ask people to 'do' anything differently. They'll just have to do what they always do: Decide what they need and then figure out the most cost-effective way to get there. In other words, shop. What they're not being asked to do is personally figure out carbon counts and chart a low-energy lifestyle. Democrats should stop implying otherwise."

LEST WE FORGET: T.G.I. Friday's Executive Chef Recommends Booze-On-Meat-With-Cheese Thing

From The Onion:

"SCHAUMBURG, IL -- The executive chef of the Tremont Road T.G.I. Friday's strongly recommended that a table of VIP guests try the evening's special: a 'tender, juicy, and heavily seasoned' booze-on-meat-with-cheese thing. 'Tonight's special is a succulent 8-ounce meat, infused with imported cheese and drizzled with a creamy reduction of booze,' said chef Tom Pinelli, adding that the entrée is served on a bed of cheese and meat, and is best paired with a glass of booze. 'However, if you're in the mood for something a little lighter, we do have a refreshing selection of sauce-on-fish-on-stick stuff, as well as some healthier cheese-filled-meat-under-bacon options.' For vegetarian diners, Pinelli recommended the 56-ounce fried mushroom."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:07 PM

July 09, 2008

7/9: Third-Rail Politics

It seems like every day the netroots are chastising the national political press for being insufficiently critical of John McCain. Yesterday we observed that liberal bloggers were angry that the press wasn't devoting more scrutiny to McCain's pledge to balance the federal budget by 2013 -- a pledge that has been met with skepticism by economists. Today, the netroots are upset that journalists aren't mentioning McCain's recent remarks about Social Security, in which he said, "We are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." Some liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain doesn't understand how Social Security works, since younger workers have been paying for retirees' benefits since the program's inception. Other bloggers are claiming that McCain is deliberately criticizing Social Security's "pay-as-you-go" funding mechanism because he wants to privatize the system.

It remains to be seen whether journalists will take the netroots' advice and devote more attention to McCain's brush with the third rail. In the meantime, liberal bloggers are urging Dems to use McCain's words against him. Mark Kleiman writes: "Every Democratic speech between now and November should include the sentence 'John McCain said Social Security is a disgrace.'"

MCCAIN: This Won't Play Well In Florida...

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for calling the current Social Security system "a disgrace" because current workers pay for retirees' benefits:

"I'd like to start out by giving you a little straight talk. Under the present set-up, because we've mortgaged our children's futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that present-day retirees have unless we fix it. And Americans have got to understand that.

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The fact that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by workers, young or otherwise, is not a disgrace, or a scandal, or a new development. Social Security has been funded this way since its inception. The first person to receive monthly benefits, one Ida Mae Fuller, had worked for three years, and contributed all of $24.75 to the Social Security Trust Fund. She lived to be 100, and collected $22,888.92 in benefits. Did the Social Security Trust Fund found that money under its pillow? Somehow, I don't think so. Younger workers paid Ida Mae Fuller's pension. Workers who were younger still paid those workers when they retired. And even younger workers, like me, are paying for their Social Security benefits. This is not a disgrace; it's the way the system operates. And it's certainly not a sign that we've mortgaged our children's futures, or that something has to be fixed."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "People say a lot of things about Social Security -- a lot of it nonsense. But I haven't heard something like this in a long time. John McCain says that Social Security, as originally conceived more than 70 years ago, is an 'absolute disgrace.' [...] It's really a disgrace? That's how the system was designed to operate. And it's served as financial bedrock of retirement security in this country for going on a century."
• Kleiman: "McCain said that the Social Security system is 'an absolute disgrace' because it pays current pensions out of current earnings. [...] Every Democratic speech between now and November should include the sentence 'John McCain said Social Security is a disgrace.'"
• Mother Jones' Nick Baumann: "McCain's [George W.] Bush-echoing attack on Social Security isn't just radical. It also contradicts his campaign's stated position. McCain's website says he supports 'supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts.' There's nothing on the website about how the current system is a 'disgrace' or how the way it is funded has to be drastically altered. But that's what McCain was saying in Denver."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Earlier McCain said he supports private accounts, but only as a 'supplement' to Social Security, not as a substitute. That official campaign statement was apparently crafted to make it sound as if McCain was not endorsing the unpopular Bush/Republican proposal that did partially substitute private accounts for Social Security. [...] But McCain's statement on Monday shows he's either misleading voters about his underlying support for substituting private accounts for Social Security or he's proposing 'fixes' without understanding his proposal undermines Social Security's most fundamental feature. Either way, he just grabbed hold of America's riskiest third rail with both hands."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "It seems that [McCain] decided that peeing on the third rail was a good idea."

MCCAIN II: Why Isn't This A Story?

Liberal bloggers are upset that the press isn't paying more attention to McCain's remarks about Social Security:

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "This could ruin him. As most everyone who earns a paycheck knows, young workers pay into the program, and retirees collect the benefit. McCain is saying that Social Security is a disgrace because it works the way it's supposed to. [...] McCain, like [Barack] Obama, travels everywhere with reporters. All the time. But yet I haven't heard a single cable news anchor mention this story -- that McCain called Social Security an 'absolute disgrace,' have you?"
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Social Security is one of the most successful, efficient, and politically popular government programs in history. John McCain -- candidate for President -- said yesterday that the funding mechanism behind this wildly successful program is an 'absolute disgrace.' (And that's the charitable interpretation). Anyway, since McCain feels pretty strongly about this injustice, I'm hoping that an intrepid member of the press corps will ask John 'Details' McCain a simple question: 'You said that the way Social Security has been funded for the past 75 years is a "total disgrace." In your view, how exactly should it be funded?' And if he starts mumbling about private accounts and market returns, the reporter should follow up by asking how he intends to cover the resulting gap. Inquiring Floridian minds want to know..."
• The American Prospect's Dean Baker: "Of course present-day retirees have always been paid their benefits from the taxes paid by current workers. That has been true from Social Security's inception. Some folks might have thought Senator McCain's description of Social Security as a 'disgrace' was worth a mention somewhere in the media, but the NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, and USA Today don't seem to have noticed. It's not like he said 'bitter.'"

MCCAIN III: Tim Russert Would Have Loved To Have Asked This Question...

Now that Iraq's Prime Minister and national security adviser are both insisting on a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals, liberal bloggers are asking McCain if he still shares his 2004 position that the U.S. should leave Iraq if the democratically elected gov't of Iraq asks the U.S. to leave. Here is the relevant passage from McCain's 2004 interview with ex-CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson:

Peterson: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

• Democracy Arsenal's Adam Blickstein: "Is McCain's position the same today as it was in 2004 if Iraq's democratically elected government demands a timetable for withdrawing foreign forces from Iraq?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Once upon a time, John McCain said we'd leave Iraq if the Iraqis asked us to. McCain also has eviscerated anyone who has even mentioned the possibility of a timetable. Well, the Iraqis are talking about one, so what does McCain have to say now?"
• Kleiman: "In March, John McCain said that setting a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq would be 'an unconscionable act of betrayal'. But McCain also said three years ago that we'd have to get out if the elected Iraqi government asked us to get out. Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki said he wants a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. McCain's flacks say that Maliki's position is 'consistent' with McCain's. R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght. I think this is A Big Deal."
• The Huffington Post's Jon Soltz: "When you send a signal to a foreign nation that you will leave their land when asked, you better do it, when asked. If not, you only bolster the notion that you are an occupier, and the idea that the only way to get rid of us is with deadly force. John McCain's silence on the issue is severely troubling -- it's as if he doesn't know what to do now. His advisor saying McCain will stick to his guns -- Iraqi wishes be damned -- is a flip flop from his previous position. Combined, it is a very bleak and discouraging view of what a McCain administration would look like on what is, supposedly, his biggest strength."

MCCAIN IV: You're Killing Us, Johnny!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for making a joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes:

"Presidential candidate John McCain, who once sang in jest about bombing Iran, on Tuesday reacted to a report of rising U.S. cigarette exports to the country by saying it may be 'a way of killing 'em.'

[McCain] was responding to a report that U.S. exports to Iran rose tenfold during President George W. Bush's term in office despite hostility between the two states. A rise in cigarette sales was a big part of that, according to an Associated Press analysis of seven years of U.S. trade figures.

'Maybe that's a way of killing 'em,' McCain said to reporters during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. 'I meant that as a joke, as a person who hasn't had a cigarette in 28 years, 29 years,' he added, laughing."

• Kleiman: "That John McCain: such a kidder! Isn't the thought of a bunch of Iranians dying of lung cancer from American cigarettes just HIGH-larious?"
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "How many flippant statements has John McCain made now about killing Iranian citizens? There was last year's 'Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran'. Both jibes accompanied by McCain's patented creepy giggle."
• Yglesias: "John McCain once again 'jokes' about his desire to kill Iranians. This time, the joke is a little bit more of a real joke, but the targets of his lust for killing foreigners are clearly ordinary Iranian civilians. If a major Iranian political leader were to repeatedly joke about bombing the United States and killing Americans, you can just imagine the shit-storm about how Iran isn't a normal country with normal interests, that it's run by irrational fanatics, appeasement won't work, etc."
• BooMan: "This isn't a matter of whether someone has a sense of humor or not. These jokes aren't funny. Whatever laughter they produce is strictly of the 'uneasy' or 'awkward' variety. [...] John McCain is harming our foreign relations with not only Iran but the entire international community."
• Atrios: "I've long appreciated the fact that when you speak in public a massive amount inevitably some stupid shit is going to come out of your mouth, which is why 'gaffe' focused political journalism is bad. There are obvious exceptions, of course, like 'Macaca' which actually tell us something about the candidate. But when it comes to joking about killing Iranians...just what is the joke? I appreciate that it was a failed attempt at a joke, but the underlying premise is...it would be funny to kill Iranians. That's some straight talk we can believe in, my friends."

OBAMA: Speaking In Tongues

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for making the following comments about bilingualism:

"You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, 'We need to have English-only.' They want to pass a law, 'We want English-only.' Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], 'Merci beaucoup.' Right?

You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business."

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama seems to be conflating demands for English-only curriculum to hasten the assimilation of English as a Second Language students with opposition to foreign language courses. I have never encountered anyone who demanded an 'English-only' Spanish lesson. [...] Maybe in the circles Obama travels in, every immigrant has learned English, or is well along the way. But a walk down the street in many neighborhoods across the country reveal that quite a few immigrants not only haven't learned it yet, but they live and work in separate, out-of-the-spotlight enclaves in which they never need to learn it, and will never need to learn it. It's a formula for cultural Balkanization."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "If Obama honestly thinks the argument against bilingualism has anything to do with the importance of teaching kids a second language, he really has no idea whatsoever what the argument is about. More likely, this is his way of sounding like a brave-truth-teller by offering a 'criticism' pretty much every middle class parent already agrees with and deflecting an issue that might put him crosswise with Democratic Hispanic activists and other multiculturalists."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I agree that everyone should learn a foreign language. I spoke French for a while, and I know a little Spanish from growing up in Southern California, and I studied Irish for several years. The study of foreign language not only broadens one's cultural perspective, but it also helps in understanding one's native tongue. However, to argue that Americans should learn Spanish as a higher priority than insisting that immigrants learn English is nonsense, and Obama's argument for it is a giant non-sequitur. It carries a strong whiff of America-bashing, too."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Obama starts off this clip by opposing English as an official language, seems to emphasize that teaching kids Spanish is more important than teaching them English, and then says Americans are an embarrassment because they only know one language when they go to Europe. It may be one of the most grotesquely arrogant, out of touch displays that I have seen from someone running for President in the last decade."
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "So if Obama is embarrassed by Americans who can't speak French or German or Spanish, is he embarrassed by immigrants to the United States who can't speak English?"

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson adds: "Obama's previous idealization of minority-theme charter schools and the need for more 'oppression studies' are precisely the sorts of therapeutic curricula that ensure Americans are not getting classical instruction in languages and literatures. We still await his visit to an inner-city school where he might lecture the student body and faculty that more Latin, French, math, and Shakespeare would do more to make students competitive in an increasingly tough, global job market than thousands of hours of oppression studies and victimization classes."

OBAMA II: Addressing The Critics

Yesterday, Obama addressed complaints that he was "shifting to the center":

"'Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,' he said. 'The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me.' [...]

'I am someone who is no doubt progressive,' he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like. [...]

'I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp,' he said. But, he noted, he does not believe that the active hand of government is a replacement, say, for parental responsibility in education. [...]

Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. 'But don't assume that's because I'm just doing it for "political reasons,"' he said. 'That just means we disagree.'"

Obama's online supporters were pleased by his remarks:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is positive for several reasons. First, and most obviously, Obama self-identifies as a progressive twice in this speech. While it is not a replacement for standing up for progressive policies, it is still important for a Democratic nominee to publicly identity with an ideological term associated with the American left. This strikes me as quite novel, as least in recent decades. Second, Obama also self-identifies as a Democrat, rather than his typical post-partisan rhetoric. [...] Third, the speech is actually directed at what Obama calls 'my friends on the left.' I can't remember a Presidential nominee specifically courting left wing voters and activists before. Honestly, I really can't. This is a sign of increased respect and being taken more seriously. The Obama FISA group played an important role in this regard. Fourth, Obama says, bluntly, to take him at his word. Since it is now vogue to believe that Obama has secret plans to stand up for left-wing policies that differ from his public statements, it is nice to have confirmation from Obama himself that we should stop believing in such secret plans."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I can't help but think the hyperventilating in some corners has become wildly excessive. On some issues (gay marriage in California, reforming the bankruptcy laws), Obama has moved to the left. On others (Iraq, death penalty, faith-based programs), he hasn't moved at all. He switched gears on public financing, but that was pragmatic, not ideological. Obama is wrong about the FISA 'compromise,' but one issue, albeit an important one, is not evidence of 'zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash'. In fact, one of the great ironies of the last couple of weeks is that there's been hysterical cries about Obama 'moving to the middle' without him really moving much at all. In some ways, this is actually the best of all possible worlds -- voters (most of whom consider themselves moderates) are being told that Obama is angering liberals by campaigning as a centrist, while at the same time, Obama is just about as progressive as he was before."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "[Obama] is largely where he has always been, as he points out. He's a very pragmatic liberal and committed Christian. Given all he's written and said these past few years, nothing in the last month or so is out of place, it seems to me. But I'm not sure the criticism from the left and right -- eerily similar to the criticism of [Bill] Clinton from both sides in the 1990s -- is bad for him. It's probably great for him. He has many of Clinton's virtues -- immense intelligence, political ruthlessness -- and none of Clinton's vices -- a lack of core values, indiscipline, a bad marriage of convenience."

OBAMA III: Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, remain convinced that Obama has indeed been trying t