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 July 14, 2008 01:28 PM