August 20, 2008

8/20: Dukakis II?

Two weeks ago, we wrote that "the difference in mood between the liberal blogosphere and the conservative blogosphere is striking." We observed that righty bloggers were feeling increasingly confident about John McCain's chances, whereas lefty bloggers were growing increasingly concerned about what they perceived to be Barack Obama's inability to respond effectively to McCain's attacks.

Today, that dynamic is even more pronounced. As McCain continues to rise in national polls, the mood in the conservative blogosphere ranges from cautiously optimistic to very confident. Meanwhile, the anxiety in the liberal blogosphere is palpable. Josh Marshall observes that Obama's message "seems very muddled" while digby warns that "the Democratic campaign in the fall is going to have to be much much tougher than the summer [campaign] was." Several bloggers are comparing Obama to Michael Dukakis and complaining that he isn't hitting back hard enough.

The overarching theme in the netroots' criticism of Obama's campaign is that it hasn't been sufficiently aggressive in defining McCain, whether that means attacking McCain specifically or linking him with George W. Bush. Will the Obama camp start going after McCain's brand, and if so, how aggressively will it do so?

OBAMA: Let's Not Panic, But...

McCain's rise in national and state polls is making liberal bloggers increasingly worried about the state of the Obama campaign:

• digby: "It's not the end of the world (yet), but [the LA Times/Bloomberg poll] does show that McCain's negative attacks were far more effective than Obama's pivot to the center these past two months. The Democratic campaign in the fall is going to have to be much much tougher than the summer was. The Republicans are going to be firing all their weapons --- we haven't seen the worst of it, by far. We'd better hope the convention is a huge success and gives the campaign a nuclear blast-off."
• AMERICAblog's Robert Arena: "Not all is lost folks, Obama has time and money to make a shift. But if you thought that somehow this year was going to be different -- something would change and somehow the American electorate would look completely different this year than any other year, the numbers today just don't show that. This isn't a transformative election, it's another hardscrabble, claw out each and every vote, election. To win that kind of election, you need to fight for every vote and fight hard. That's why you hear the concern you hear from Josh Marshall, John [Aravosis], Joe [Sudbay], etc. And it's backed up by years of experience watching the Republicans make Democrats look weak -- [Jimmy] Carter, [Walter] Mondale, [Al] Gore, and [John] Kerry. That line of attack works when not countered and we were defeated. None of us want that in 2008."
• The Huffington Post's Marty Kaplan: "I don't doubt that Obama receives reports about what McCain is saying in speeches and ads, and summaries of what the talking heads are saying about Obama's reaction to those attacks. But my guess is that no one has assembled and screened for him a clip reel of the worst-of-the-worst -- the stuff that Obama's supporters, not to mention undecided voters, have been seeing. If he actually saw that ugly onslaught, would he really stick to his I'm-doing-this-my-way high road? Would he remain content to talk policy, and to demur with dignity when McCain and his minions slime him, rather than go on the attack and set the agenda himself? The last Democratic presidential candidate who failed to engage, who abjured ruthlessness because it wasn't consistent with the noble kind of politics he wanted America to practice, was Michael Dukakis. That misreading of what it takes to win, and not the Howdy Doody tank photo, was what sank his campaign."
• The Huffington Post's Robert L. Borosage: "Why hasn't Obama gone after [McCain]? Why haven't we seen some populist fire so clearly in order?"

TPM's Marshall analyzes what he perceives to be the Obama camp's message problem: "McCain's message is pretty clear and essentially twofold: 1) Obama is, in so many words, a frivolous phony, someone who really doesn't have any business running for president. 2) McCain is a strong leader who can defend the country. There are all sorts of sub- and secondary themes -- Obama's an outsider, questionably American, etc. But all the nitty gritty points are subservient to those two interlocking messages. From Obama, honestly, I don't sense a really clear message. There are attacks on McCain, some of which are quite good. There are positive uplifting commercials. And there are ads/messages targeted to particular states -- like Yucca Mountain in Nevada and the DHL layoffs in Ohio. But it's hard for me to come up with a clear cut Obama message in way that it's pretty simple for me to do with McCain. Even the 'change' message, which is the basis of Obama's campaign, seems much more diffuse to me than it was during the primaries."

Marshall continues: "Beating up on McCain is critical. But it's not a message in itself. And the Obama campaign needs to deepen people's trust in Obama. Not because of all the smears because an outsider running to overturn the status quo always faces trust issues. But, again, not a message. For my money, the essence of this campaign is -- Are you happy with the way the country's been run for the last 7.5 years. Has our foreign policy left us better off? Republican economic policy? You can go through all the different facets. But it's clear that the public overwhelmingly thinks the Bush presidency has been little short of a disaster. And do you want four more years of that? If that's the frame of the election, McCain will be crushed. People know they don't want four more years of Bush. McCain will be another four years of Bush. It's time for change, etc. That's the essence of the campaign. But the message, right now, seems very muddled."

OBAMA II: In Free Fall?

In contrast, the mood in the conservative blogosphere ranges from cautiously optimistic to very confident:

• RedState's Adam C: "Regardless of how you do the measuring, there is a strong argument that if the election were today McCain would win. It would be a nail biter either way. But for the first time, it is arguable that McCain is ahead today."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "David Gergen's question -- 'Is the Tide Turning?' -- gets a possible answer from a Real Clear Politics map showing John McCain moving ahead in the Electoral College for the first time. This includes 'leaners' and it might be a bit early to start making D.C. hotel reservations for Jan. 20, but..."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama is in a free-fall. McCain got to the heart of the question about Obama, and especially after the crisis in Georgia, he has voters wondering whether Obama is up to the task of running the presidency as his first executive job in politics. Even a strong VP pick may not help reverse that perception -- and could make it worse by overshadowing the nominee. Democrats may not have been in a weaker position at convention time since 1984."

OBAMA III: Digging Up Dirt

Conservative bloggers are buzzing over Stanley Kurtz' complaint that a library at the University of Illinois at Chicago is denying him access to a collection of documents discussing Obama's ties to "various radical organizations":

"A large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story. [...] Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama's leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question. Unfortunately, I don't yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial."

• Michelle Malkin: "Stanley Kurtz has done yeoman's work trying to uncover the true nature of the relationship between Barack Obama and Weather Underground terrorist-turned-academic William Ayers. [...] During his in-depth investigation and travels to Chicago to dig deeper, Kurtz has run into unexpected (or perhaps, quite expected) roadblocks."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "For a man with such a meager track record, Obama and his friends sure seem anxious about anyone checking into it for his experience -- and his associations. A public university operating a public project should provide transparency on these issues, and not stall until after the election."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "This is a ticking time bomb for the Obama campaign. They are doing their best, through proxies, to stop the release of the Annenberg records from the University of Illinois Chicago ('UIC'). Why? Because as Rick Moran points out the release of the records will fatally undermine Obama's narrative about his associations with Bill Ayers. [...] Obama's 'pure as the driven snow despite the terrorists who love me' narrative would be destroyed with the release of the Annenberg records."
• Dan Riehl: "How's that old saying go? It's the cover up, not the crime. And we know one individual involved here is already capable of committing a crime. With all that cash from the man being available at the center of this...let's hope there's no crime involving Ayers, or...anyone else. Hmm."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Breaking Down Biden

Liberal bloggers are devoting a lot of scrutiny -- most of it critical -- to Joe Biden:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I think the Democrats may be overstating [Biden's] electoral appeal. Rasmussen has conducted polling on Joe Biden at various times [and] in each case, Biden's favorables/unfavorables were pretty close to even. [...] Basically, I think he is identified enough with the (unpopular) institution of the Congress that he will be viewed by a lot of people as a partisan, but doesn't compensate for that by generating enthusiastic responses from the base, the way some other candidates might. Biden is fairly well-known -- by far the best know candidate of the [IN Sen. Evan] Bayh/Biden/[VA Gov. Tim] Kaine/[KS Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius group -- so perceptions of him are liable to be fairly entrenched, and may not be enhanced by the fluffy sort of treatment that the VP candidate usually tends to get from the press. There are some positives, though. Biden's numbers are quite strong among seniors, a group with whom Obama is underperforming, and fairly strong among moderates. He would probably lock up Pennsylvania for Obama -- both because he is well-known in the Philly burbs and because Pennsylvania has an older electorate -- and might play well somewhere like Florida."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "The Vice Presidential trial balloon of the week seems to be Joe Biden. Coming on the heels of Evan Bayh, he seems like a huge relief to many, but it may be one of those situations where you feel better simply because you stop hitting your head against the wall. [...] A lot of the Vice Presidential choice's value boils down to chemistry -- and Obama and Biden very well may have it. But Biden voted for the AUMF and the Patriot Act, so all those who thought a VP who 'undermined Obama's message of change' would just not be acceptable will no doubt be uncontrollably vexed. Or not. Then there's the problem that Biden has a history of saying really stupid stuff. Which could turn out to be a plus I suppose, if he draws the flies off Obama. An unusual election strategy, to say the least."
• Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman: "Biden has a history of racially insensitive and offensive remarks. Google 'Biden + Racism' and you get over 440,000 results documenting his racist bloopers. [...] Selecting Biden would be a great way to turn off the black voter base that the Democratic party will need to win this election. If this guy were a Republican, Democrats would be hanging him out to dry. All he needs is a Confederate flag to complete the picture. We're talking major Macaca moment potential here. And yes, as hilarious for [ex-VA Sen.] George Allen as that was, is Obama ready to sign up a VP with a record of racism comments, including one aimed straight at himself during the primaries? I doubt it."
• Kathy G.: "[Biden's] vote for the bankruptcy bill was unconscionable, and the man is a wholly owned subsidiary of the credit card companies (the senator from MBNA, indeed). I also find him grating and obnoxious on a personal level, and I'm not sure he'd wear well with voters over the long haul. Nor am I that confident that Biden's much-vaunted foreign cred is all it's cracked up to be. Not only did he vote for the war, but his partition plan for Iraq has been condemned by some foreign policy types whose work I respect."

In a separate post, Silver examines Biden's upside: "Biden's case is probably stronger than I [previously] indicated, because he tends to be most popular among voting groups with a lot of undecided voters, which means a lot of persuadables. In particular, Biden's strength with senior citizens could be a real asset. How so? Because seniors are far more likely to be undecided in this election than their younger counterparts. [...] What a Biden pick really would be is a redux of Gore-Lieberman. Al Gore got quite a large bounce in Florida when he selected [Joe] Lieberman, and if Obama were to pick Biden, he is probably committed to playing Florida out to the end, or at least until the last 15 days of the campaign."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: More Biden

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks Biden's Iraq War vote is more problematic than his bankruptcy bill vote: "It's certainly true that I could not, in good conscience, imagine voting for the bankruptcy bill. But that's one of the many reasons I wouldn't make it in electoral politics -- as best I can tell, everyone casts unconscionable votes in defense of home state industries. Certainly I'm not aware of any Senators who are innocent of this particular sin, and Barack Obama (coal, ethanol) is no exception to the general trend. [...] I think Biden's vote for the 2002 Iraq AUMF is a serious problem. It's a bit hard for me to see how Obama simultaneously says that his 'no' vote is an important demonstration of good judgment despite a lack of experience and also that Joe Biden is a great and experienced foreign policy expert. Maybe there's a brilliant solution to that, but it seems tricky to me."

BooMan prefers Kaine to Biden: "It looks like a toss-up right now between Biden and Kaine. Given that choice, I have a slight preference for Kaine. I've always liked Joe Biden, but he's too risky for me and I don't agree with him on some major foreign policy issues. Kaine is a better fit for Obama's brand and he'll help in Virginia, which could be a decisive state. I'm not thrilled with Kaine, either, but I prefer him to Bayh. I still am holding out hope for Jack Reed or Kathleen Sebelius. I'd be psyched about either one of them. Kaine and Biden would be just okay. Bayh would annoy the crap out of me. But maybe there will be a big surprise."

Open Left's Chris Bowers previously said that he prefers Biden to Kaine, but now he seems less sure: "Kaine's positives are that he is from Virginia, worked as an urban housing rights lawyer, speaks Spanish, was an extremely early Obama supporter, and opposed the war from the start. His negatives are that he has governed ineffectively, has not been strong on messaging (even on Iraq), and seems pretty right-wing. Biden's strengths are that he is familiar with the national media, has recent Georgia cred, is an excellent debater, is a tough attack dog, won't become the Democratic favorite in the next presidential nomination campaign, and is generally in the middle of the Democratic Party. His negatives are that he supported the war from the start, muddles the change message because he has been in the Senate for 36 years, is often known as representing MBNA instead of Delaware, including his support for the bankruptcy bill. I don't think it is an entirely clear choice. Biden would almost certainly be a better campaigner and a better president, but Kaine is far more a reinforcing pick than Biden. I have been pushing the reinforcing idea since the start of the year, so it is hard to turn away now."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES III: Netroots Speculation

The Washington Note's Steve Clemons thinks Obama will choose Biden: "My best guess today -- as I've said for days now -- is that Obama's choice is Joe Biden. In contrast to the netroots and progressive community's ' surge of concern' over the former momentum of Evan Bayh's selection -- a wide range of support exists for Joe Biden. [...] Tom Daschle and Evan Bayh were called and told they will not be 'it' according to several sources. I don't have anything on Tim Kaine -- other than insiders tell me that Obama has decided against him -- mostly because he doesn't help check off the foreign policy box or experience box. I just don't hear much about Kathleen Sebelius so am not counting her as a strong candidate. [...] But has Biden heard a word from Obama or his team? My sources say NO. According to one source, there has been total radio silence. Well, be thankful for radio silence I guess when other candidates for VP are getting phone calls saying 'Sorry....but we look forward to working with you in many other ways in the coming years.' The word that Obama has not communicated with Biden makes him, in the estimation of many, the likely candidate -- as Obama knows that Biden will accept on a moment's notice. I confirmed this with a person very close to the Delaware Senator."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong joins Markos Moulitsas in predicting that Obama will choose ex-Sen. Tom Daschle: "We know Obama likes Daschle, we know Daschle was vetted, and we know he has a speaker slot on Wed. We even know he's floated as a potential CoS in the WH. It makes sense too, of the whole VP process we've been watching unfold for Obama."

The Huffington Post's M.S. Bellows, Jr. and Mayhill Fowler predict that Obama will choose John Kerry: "Mayhill has been following Kerry on the stump, off and on, for the past few weeks, and has seen a man transformed: a man infused with an energy and enthusiasm, even a lightness of spirit, that balance nicely with his unshakable gravitas. It may be a desire to return the favors Karl Rove and the Swiftboaters dealt him in 2004; it may be that Kerry is sincerely impressed and energized by the prospect of an Obama Camelot. We think it's both. Whatever is inspiring Kerry lately, however, it's indisputable that Kerry is inspired. And some inspiration is what Barack Obama needs -- and may well have chosen to add to his ticket."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein thinks "it would be silly to count out Kathleen Sebelius": "Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice -- very Obama. But by choosing a female running mate, Obama would, unfortunately, thrust the Hillary die-hards and their ever-more marginal discontentment back into the spotlight. That said, anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn't deserve the designation 'feminist.' So I'd relish watching the reactions to a Sebelius nod, not only because such a choice would double down on Obama's most effective message -- 'change' -- but because it would reveal exactly which Clinton boosters are ready to widen the lens and enthusiastically support women's leadership as such."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: McCain/Lieberman?

Several conservative bloggers think the McCain camp is floating the possibility of selecting a pro-choice running mate for political reasons:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "In general, I think it makes sense for a Republican presidential nominee to leave open the possibility of picking a pro-choice running mate but ultimately to pick a pro-lifer. Kathryn [Jean Lopez] has been suggesting that McCain is doing just that right now. If so, I fear his campaign has misplayed the issue. At this point, if McCain picks a pro-lifer, won't his opponents say he was browbeat by the far right?"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "News reports say that John McCain is keeping Joe Lieberman in the running for VP. That's fine with me. Not because I think McCain will pick Lieberman -- if he does, he's so openly disrespectful of the policies and priorities of his base, and so dismissive of his need for their support, that his judgment is in question. [...] But keeping Lieberman in the mix, even as conservatives like me reiterate our strong opposition to a Democrat as veep on the Republican ticket plays well for McCain. It's designed to send a message to independents -- just as his supposed openness to a pro-choice running mate was supposed to reassure PUMA's. He's using the veep process to re-establish his credentials as a 'maverick' who may not always toe the GOP line, without actually moving left on any policies...and if talking up [CT Sen. Joe] Lieberman helps him in Florida, he's not averse to that, either."

TheNextRight's Patrick Ruffini is one of the few conservative bloggers who finds Lieberman acceptable: "To me, [Lieberman] wouldn't be the best pick, but he wouldn't be the worst either. There is much to commend the 'do no harm' VP calculus. Lieberman wouldn't be a 'do no harm' pick. If you do the static analysis (is Lieberman better than, say, Rob Portman?) it's all wrong. The difference is that any of the conventional picks don't help McCain with his #1 priority: winning the election. Despite narrowing the gap, McCain is currently about 3 points behind. He needs a better VP pick than Obama will come up with -- and unless Obama chooses Clinton, Obama's pick will be safe and milquetoast. Lieberman is the most obvious opportunity to shake up the calculus of the race. Picking him did something for Al Gore in 2000, taking him from a sure loser to a position of strength in the fall. A conservative VP on a losing ticket is still a losing ticket."

Most conservative bloggers disagree with Ruffini:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The addition of Joe Lieberman will not convince independents that McCain is a maverick; it will convince an already-skeptical GOP base that McCain is a RINO. Patrick knows better than most how essential enthusiasm is to the GOTV efforts and fundraising. McCain appears to have finally generated some of that enthusiasm, and picking Lieberman would snuff it out for good. Republicans respect Lieberman, but they don't want a liberal Democrat as the person who would succeed to the Presidency if something happened to McCain -- which is the entire point of the Vice Presidency. Lieberman may not be the worst choice, but he's close to it. If McCain wants a Democrat, let him pick John Breaux, whose positions really do reflect conservative values. Otherwise, the Republican Party has plenty of options for a Republican ticket."
• RedState's Directors: "Should Senator John McCain choose a pro-choice running mate, we are comfortably enough in touch with the Republican base to say without hesitation that the majority of the base would sit this race out. And we could not blame them for it."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[McCain] doesn't need any bank shots or game-changers. He needs what was on display Saturday night at Saddleback -- a confidence in the rightness of center-right ideas across a range of issues and of course a deep belief in American exceptionalism. A conventional but base-energizing choice -- [Mitt] Romney or [Tim] Pawlenty -- will keep the momentum going and reveal no deficit of confidence in McCain's ideas or the core ideas of his party."

MEDIA CRITICISM: Maddow Gets Promoted

Yesterday afternoon, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wrote a Daily Kos diary announcing that Rachel Maddow, a longtime netroots favorite, will be getting her own MSNBC show:

"Happy Now? The network will be formally announcing this tomorrow, but I am pleased to inform you in this fully authorized leak, that as of Monday, September 8, our mutual friend Ms. Maddow will become host of her own show, on MSNBC, at 9 PM Eastern Time."

The netroots are ecstatic, as they have wanted Maddow to have her own show for a long time:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Finally! I'll never understand why this took so damn long. Her show will follow Olbermann's, and a HUGE congratulations to one of the smartest voices on cable land. The Olbermann-Maddow 1-2 punch will be potent. Now, if we could get a decent lead-in for Olbermann, we'd have a serious block of programming on our hands."
• Atrios: "Unpossible. The 'no liberals on the teevee' rule has finally been broken. Congratulations, Rachel."
• Sudbay: "An hour of Olbermann, then an hour of Maddow. That's going to make watching MSNBC so much more fun."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "This is proof that even in today's disgusting, nepotistic and cutthroat media world -- a world that too often rewards idiocy and the idiots that spout the idiocy -- good things can happen to good people."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Well this is just great news. [...] Rachel is one of the smartest people I know, a great broadcaster, and an all-around cool person. So she'll certainly bring light to important stories otherwise ignored by everyone else in cable news. But Rachel will also draw an audience not necessarily predisposed to liberalism. With Rachel on the air, viewers will get the opportunity to watch real news instead of bluster -- and I bet a sizable number will jump at the chance."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Should McCain Make A One-Term Pledge?

NRO's Andy McCarthy:

"Jen Rubin argues for the McCain one-term pledge, of which I believe Ramesh [Ponnuru] has been the strongest proponent. There's a lot in what they argue, but I'm not convinced yet. I probably could be if I knew McCain were going to pick a Veep who would energize conservatives both this year and as the 2012 heir-apparent.

For us, the biggest problem with a McCain presidency, whether one or two terms, would be its front-loaded nature: McCain's greatest service to conservatives would be beating Obama. That is no small thing, but it is one that would be fully accomplished even before McCain took office. After that, what leverage would we have if McCain had run on a one-term pledge? He wouldn't need us to be re-elected, and he has demonstrated in the past that building a conservative Republican Party for the future is not a top priority for him. He'd want to ring up some presidential 'accomplishments' and the Democrats -- with increased numbers in Congress -- would be the only game in town. [...]

The one-term pledge would certainly help McCain big-time with Hillary Democrats and independents. If he picks a good Veep, the pledge could help McCain with us. It could even help him with at least some in the media, for whom the prospect of covering 'You Decide 2012' for four full years beginning this November might be even more irresistable than Obama. All in all, it would increase his chances of getting elected. I concede that this is no small thing -- in light of the frightening specter of an Obama presidency, maybe it's the most important thing. But as far as governing goes, I don't see much in it for McCain or for us."

LEST WE FORGET: Nobody Tells Robert Duvall What To Do

Townhall's Matt Lewis:

"I'm hearing that tensions were high recently when veteran actor Robert Duvall was taping a voice-over for a video to be played during the Republican National Convention. Apparently, the veteran actor objected to the direction he was receiving from Republican media guru Fred Davis. According to my sources, Duvall said something along the lines of: 'F-you Fred! If Scorsese couldn't give me direction, what the hell makes you think you can?' Though this blow-up is actually recorded on tape, my guess is it's in everyone's best interest for this to not leak out..."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at August 20, 2008 01:47 PM