August 06, 2008

8/6: This Mule's Got Some Kick After All

Hitting back against GOP mockery over tire gauges, Barack Obama in a town hall meeting 8/5 said:

"Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

Obama's tone -- lively and sarcastic -- was noticeably different than his usual calm and coolness. His new tone seemed to be a reaction to the recent string of jabs by the McCain camp and subsequent hand wringing among Obama supporters that he's been too above the fray and needs to take the fight to the GOP. Thus, liberal bloggers were generally heartened by Obama's retort:

• New Republic's Jason Zengerle "I don't know if a politician has ever offered a more pitch-perfect response to the idiocy of the modern-day GOP."
• American Prospect's Ezra Klein: "Obama is never better than when he's intellectually indignant. This was true on negotiating with dictators. It was true on the gas tax holiday. And it's proving true on tire gauges. If I were on the Obama campaign, the themes laid out in this video wouldn't simply be my rejoinder to the GOP's tire gauge bullshit. They'd be my message for the next few months."

Others who were sympathetic to Obama's argument nevertheless had reservations about his word choice:

• New Republic's Michael Crowley: "My gut says that, given the way shallow national politics works, Obama will lose this exchange and wind up sounding like a Dukakisian know-it-all. But I'm tempered by the example of his fight with Hillary Clinton over her empty gas-tax holiday proposal, which Obama (corectly) derided as a political gimmick."
• New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "I don't think it was quite pitch perfect--maybe a touch too eggheady with the mention of 'experts.' But deriding the GOP for embracing ignorance was a nice way to invert McCain's charge. I'd guess this resonates more than usual after eight years of George W. Bush. And Obama delivered the riff in the right tone--not angry or righteous but bemused: 'This is the kind of thing they do, I don't understand it...' Even more effective was Obama's jujitsuing of McCain's 'Celeb' ad (again, with the possible exception of the word 'experts'): 'This is serious business. Instead of running ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they should go talk to some energy experts and actually make a difference...' It's a great punchline--it really flays the GOP for a.) being out of touch about what matters to voters, and b.) the party's less than high-minded campaign tactics. But it does all this with the same light hand. If Obama adopts this as a standard refrain, that ad could end up backfiring on McCain."

Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent compares Obama's biting remarks to the GOP's mocking of Democrats: "The whole tire gauge dust-up is useful because it sheds light on the different species of mockery the two campaigns are directing at each other -- the realm of mockery being one where the GOP has enjoyed a distinct advantage in the last two presidential elections. ... For the moment Obama is striking a lighter tone at times than the GOP is -- something that represents a change from the last election. The GOP's mockery of Obama this time around -- the celeb ad, the tire-gauge stunt -- has a kind of grating, adolescent, forced quality to it. Last time, the GOP's mockery of John Kerry had a kind of effortless quality that just isn't there right now. ... Another factor: Pundits and opinion-makers, for a host of reasons, just don't seem to be as willing, or as able, to join in the GOP mockery of Obama as they were four years ago against Kerry. Sure, there's plenty of the usual media clowning, but it tends to come across as flailing. The punches just aren't really landing."

I Don't Like You Either's Blue Stockings agrees: "I think it'll backfire just because most people, even right-wingers, want to find a way to save money on gas. If inflating tires works, which it does, they'll notice it all right."

Conservative bloggers used the occasion to reiterate why they think Obama's original "tire gauge" remarks were inaccurate and foolish. Dismissing Obama's retort as a red herring, Red State's Kevin Holtsberry: "But the problem isn't that Republicans denied that air pressure could save fuel. The problem is that Obama's math was way off. Powerline did the math, Jim Geraghty did the math, and Jake Tapper did the math, and under no scenario do you get to savings equal to offshore drilling. So who is ignorant and who needs to talk to the experts?"

But bloggers such as Obsidian Wings's hilzoy insisted that Obama's math was perfectly accurate, and decried Republicans like McCain for misleading ordinary voters: "So: is it true that we can save as much oil by inflating our tires and getting regular tuneups as 'they're talking about getting off drilling'? Yes. I assume that Obama is comparing the oil saved by inflating tires and getting tuneups to the amount of oil we could get by drilling offshore in currently restricted areas. ... When the McCain campaign says that 'Senator Obama's solution to high gas prices is telling Americans to make sure their tires are inflated', ... it's as though they were saying: we are going to adopt a strategy that will force you, the voters, to spend hours of your lives checking each and every one of our statements for accuracy. We have no respect for the value of your time. Nor do we respect your intellect or your civic engagement: if we did, we wouldn't adopt a strategy that can only work if voters are too apathetic to notice that what we're saying is false. ... It's a curious strategy for someone who claims to put country first, and to care about honor."

In response to Obama's "ignorant" remarks, McCain said:

"Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it."

That admission seemed to deflate the GOP rhetoric against Obama and put the whole issue to rest. MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The McCain campaign appears intent on trying to win the daily media battles -- even to the bane of crafting a broader narrative on what their campaign is about, what their candidate stands for, and what type of President he would be. I've always thought this to be a risky strategy; ... But it is a tremendously risky strategy when the meme starts to take hold that a candidate will say anything -- even things that he distances himself from just days later -- to get elected. We've already seen this from McCain, who has changed his position on almost every single major (and even minor) issue facing the country, and whose campaign has been forced to walk back criticisms of Obama (think the visit to the military base in Germany or the claims about Obama's tax plan that were exposed as wholly false). Now McCain is being forced to back away from yet another claim, again feeding the story line that he will say anything (even claims he must walk back just days later) to become President."

MCCAIN: Take My Wife, Please!

The liberal blogosphere was in an uproar over McCain's comedic remarks at a Sturgis biker rally on 8/4 p.m. Suggesting that his wife, Cindy, should enter the rally's beauty contest (which is "essentially a topless" competition), McCain said:

"I told her with a little luck she could be the only lady to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

• Kathy G.: "I've written about this before, but is John McCain a gigantic sexist asshole, or what?"
• Jezebel's Megan Carpentier: "Miss Buffalo Chip isn't a beauty contest in the traditional sense — it's a relatively debauched topless (and sometimes bottomless) multiday contest where women dance, jiggle and reportedly even perform blow jobs on bananas for the titillation of the spectators. And John McCain offered up his 54-year-old wife as a contestant. ... He did it to pander to the crowd's idea of appropriate masculinity, and that apparently includes over-sexualizing your wife and the mother of your children for the amusement of a few people in a crowd. McCain offered up the thought of his wife objectifying herself for the sexual gratification of others (at his suggestion) in order to get a couple of chuckles, inspire some male fantasy and make a few 'friends.' Fun! ... I think it's another piece of gravel in a growing mountain of evidence that John McCain doesn't think a lot about women, their place as equals in society or their rights in that society. But he does seem to think a lot about us as sexual beings — or, at least, sexual objects."
• Moderate Voice's Elrod: "So, if we are going to have a conversation about character, let's consider John McCain's view of women in his life, and women in general. He essentially offered his wife up for a Girls Gone Wild video; I don't think I've ever seen a more grotesque pander in my life. Now I have no problem with McCain going to Sturgis. I have a lot of respect for biker culture, which is very strong in East Tennessee where I live. But offering your wife up for Miss Buffalo Chip ... is truly crass. When placed alongside a lifetime of callousness toward women, it reveals a troubling window into John McCain"s character."
• And primarily addressing pro-Hillary women upset over her primary loss, Taylor Marsh: "Hello, all of you anti-Obama zealots, got misogyny? That's your man, John McCain, a where's Pakistan?, Sunni or Shia - who cares?, bomb-bomb-bomb Iran, Take my wife topless please, kind of guy. You can add McCain offering up his wife for a topless contest to what John McCain once said about Hillary, before he needed her votes.

Liberal bloggers were also upset over what they perceived to be a lack of outrage in the mainstream media, as well as a double standard when it comes to McCain and Obama. Pandagon's Jesse Taylor: "All I'm saying is that if Barack Obama had gone to an event with 20,000 people wasting gas to talk about energy and said that his wife should have simulated sucking a banana dick between another woman's legs, this race would be fucking over."

Jed Report doesn't view McCain's remarks as intentionally sexist, but nevertheless criticizes him for what he sees as shameless pandering: "I think the issue here is that McCain is so out-of-touch that he had no idea what he was talking about. If he knew it was nude event, I can't imagine he would have said he wanted to see Cindy in it. He's not that stupid. The point I'm making is that while John McCain was trying to position himself as the biker's best friend, the truth is that he's a $520-shoe wearing elitist -- and a total phony at Sturgis. He's got nothing more in common with the Harley-riding bike ralliers there than George Bush does with a true rancher in Texas. Does America really want another faker in the White House?"

Conservative bloggers were mostly silent on the controversy. However, The Stranger's Dan Savage, a liberal sex columnist, came to McCain's defense: "We're wasting our time beating up on John McCain for suggesting that his leathery ol' wife should participate in a topless/bottomless beauty pageant. Yes, Obama couldn't say it -- but then Obama isn't a notorious ladies man and adulterer that dumped his first wife when she went and got all ugly and shit. More to the point, and setting aside the issue of race, people think it's cute when the elderly pretend that they've still got it and say mildly racy (not racist!) things about their leathery ol' spouses. These comments would be interpreted very differently if Obama made them not because Obama is black (or a Democrat) but because Obama is young and virile and his wife is a total fucking fox. If Obama had suggested that Michelle enter a topless beauty pageant we would be forced to actually conjure up mental images of Michelle taking part because Michelle could. (And she could win.) When McCain says it about Cindy, we don't picture Cindy entering the contest because she couldn't and, on the off chance that she did, she certainly wouldn't win it. People don't perceive sexual heat, or sexual tension, in McCain's marriage and therefore they don't perceive any in his comments. The people in that crowd -- and the people watching the clip on YouTube -- interpret them like this: 'Hey, the old dude still thinks his old wife is hot -- awww, isn't that cute?' Democrats and progressives straining to make an issue of this by playing 'if Obama said it!' are making a mistake. We're not the party of idiotic, knee-jerk prudery and we look ridiculous when we pretend that we are."

CELEBRITY: Paris For President

In response to her unsolicited appearance in McCain's "Celeb" ad, Paris Hilton hit back on 8/5 with a "campaign ad" of her own. Politico's Ben Smith: "Paris Hilton makes fun of John McCain's age and unveils her own energy policy. Really. UPDATE: Obama spokesman Bill Burton reacts: "Whatever." UPDATE: McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds emails: "It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain's 'all of the above' approach to America's energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.'"

The blogosphere was all over the Paris video, but few had anything of substance to add to the political debate surrounding it. Moderate Voice's Jazz Shaw's response to the ad was typical: "And so it comes to this. We're in the midst of a heated presidential contest, an energy crisis looms, the economy is on the skids, and I come before you today to once again write about... Paris Hilton."

Begrudgingly, New Republic's Dayo Olopade takes the time to fact-check Paris: "I write this in full knowledge that I am fanning the flames of this distracting devolution into the realm of actual celebrities--but as long as millions of people are going to be listening to Paris Hilton on energy (far more than might have tuned in for McCain's remarks here or Obama's here), and because this is important stuff--we may as well run it through the Vine fact-checker.... In reality, experts--and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin--repeatedly acknowledge that it would take 5-10 years for any tangible effects of offshore drilling to take hold; new oil production would only amount to 1 percent (200,000 barrels) of projected US demand when it does become available; and if new oil in 2015 or so could lower the price of gasoline, it would only do so by a few cents. So there's no 'tiding' over anything until technologies 'kick in.'"

OBAMA II: Ramblin' Man

In his latest column, David Brooks wonders why Obama isn't polling higher (given all the indicators this year that a Democrat should be crushing a Republican). Brooks argues that voters might not be connecting with Obama because of his "sojourner" background:

"There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."

Campaign Desk's Megan Garber thinks Brooks's column negatively reinforces the "otherness" meme attached to Obama: "[The column] would seem, all in all, a fairly round condemnation of the presumptive Democratic nominee: non-committal, calculating, other. While emotional engagement can be, of course, a liability for a candidate (see 'Scream, Dean'), automaton-like coolness is perhaps even more of one. And there are few things worse for a politician to be, in Americans' eyes, than calculating. While Brooks mentions the positive side of Obama's in/out dichotomy -- 'his fantastic powers of observation,' 'his skills as a writer and thinker,' and the fact 'that people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves reflected in Obama's eyes" -- the column's overall taste is somewhat bitter. It paints a picture of someone defined by, in the largest sense, his otherness."

Huffington Post's Andy Ostroy attempts to debunk Brook's theory: "Brooks summarily tears apart Obama's entire career as if it's truly meaningless. That Obama's a self-made success with infinitely more impressive credentials than, say, George Bush, gets lost on Brooks. His job as a conservative pundit is not to speak the truth about Republicans, but to distort the truth about Democrats. But the truth is, Obama is the American Dream personified. Of mixed-race heritage and from a poor, broken home, he made his way into the finest academic institutions in the country, and became the first ever black editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He spent years as a community organizer, 12 years as a law professor, 6 years as a State Senator, 3 as a U.S. Senator, and stands the best chance of anyone in history of becoming the first black president. Yet Brooks' column conjures up the image of some emotionless, spiritless, disconnected automaton who somehow managed to accomplished this greatness without ever having any real, intimate relationships or intellectual curiosity. That he somehow robotically drifted his way to being some sort of comatose-like wonder, having fooled everyone and touched no one. Give us a break, Brooks."

No More Mister Nice Blog's Steve M. sees a double standard when it comes to Democrats and Republicans: "What's preposterous about this is that our last three Republican presidents all benefited from an utterly phony sense of rootedness. Reagan, as Brooks says, was believed to have 'small-town virtues' even though he went Hollywood 43 years before he was elected president. Both Bushes were old-money preppies, born in New England, who pretended to be down-home Texans, and the younger Bush compounded the fraud by cynically buying an ersatz "ranch" a year before running for president."

Ian Leslie embraced Brooks's argument, and insists that Obama has actually done the same: "Obama is well aware of this ambiguity in his image, and cultivates it. He has written that he 'serves as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes can project their own views.' More recently he said that he has become 'a symbol of America's best traditions.' He was rather unfairly pilloried by John McCain for this. Rather than self-glorification, he was trying to deflect attention from himself - to say 'it's not about me'. Elsewhere he referred to himself as 'just the excuse'. He seeks to remove or at least blur any fixed notions of who he is, or what he stands for, from the campaign. He embraces ambiguity."

Many conservative bloggers used the column to reinforce their view that Obama is a cynical, conviction-less politician. Protein Wisdom's Dan Collins: "Brooks actually has interesting things to say about Obama's pattern of being in and out at the same time, a liminal figure who seems to have issues with committing to institutions, whilst using them for his own benefit: A calculated ambiguity, one might call it. Fascinating how someone so averse to committee work would want to preside."

Other bloggers offered alternative reasons as to why Obama isn't polling as high as he should be:

• Stephen Bainbridge: "Look, the answer is a lot simpler. The USA is still a 50-50 country. (Or, maybe more precisely, a 47-47 country.) The GOP brand name is in trouble these days, but the vast bulk of the people who voted for Bush 43 (twice), Dole, Bush 41 (twice), and Reagan (twice) aren't likely to be swept off their feet by Obamamania. The plurality of American voters who still self-identify as conservative aren’t going to be an easy sell for a left-liberal product of the Chicago machine. The narrow swath of people who are really in play don't produce landslides. ... In sum, just because media elites, Manhattanites, and Hollywoodistas are swooning over Obama doesn't mean he's going to win the center-right heartland."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The second factor, I'd argue, is, paradoxically, Democratic strength. The shift away from the GOP is pronounced everywhere (democracy hasn't failed completely) and few doubt that the Dems could make big gains in both House and Senate this fall. So the threat of the kind of Republican agenda that propelled Bush from 2002 to 2006 is much diminished. McCain, moreover, is not so bad a figure to deal with a Democratic Congress from the perspective of many independent voters, especially since the Congress is pretty much reviled as well. So the choice becomes an all-Democratic government, headed by a senator whose newness is still one of the most striking things about him - or an old war horse who ticked off all the right Republicans at one point or other and who was more right about the sruge than Obama. Obama's hopes for a landslide therefore rest on the chance that economic distress will now do to the public mood what Iraq once did - and make bold change seem necessary."

OBAMA III: Oy Vet!

Much of the right-wing blogosphere was in an uproar over a Wall Street Journal report on the recent resignation of Obama's Muslim-outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi, who once sat on the same board as a fundamentalist imam and who had spoken before various groups with scholars associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The big story isn't so much how Asbahi would have been a threat to the US as a member of Obama's campaign (answer: not much), but in how inept Obama and his team are at background checks. These will be the same people who appoint people to government posts if Obama wins the election. How many of these 'mistakes' will occur then? Competence usually comes with experience, and Obama doesn't demonstrate much of either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If You Can't Take The Heat...

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't think anyone during the primary accused Bill Clinton of being a 'racist'--as in 'I don't think black people are equal to whites.' He was accused of race-baiting. Some of it was, from my perspective, dubious. Deriding Obama's identity as a guy who consistently opposed the Iraq War as a 'fairy tale' is not only fair, but actually kind of true. But I thought the infamous South Carolina/Jesse Jackson comparison was race-bating--either that or it was just foolishly dismissive. Nevertheless, it amazes me that Clinton is actually still pissed-off about this idea that he's a racist. Of course it's telling that he's turned the very specific charge of race-baiting, into a much larger, much easier to attack charge of racism. I have no doubt that Obama's surrogates worked behind the scenes to push the Clinton race-baiting angle, while Obama angelically smiled and claimed to take no offense. But that's what people do when they're running for office. The whole Clinton appeal was based on this idea that they would fight dirty, that they could counter the Republican attack machine, that politics was basically dirty, and to win you had to be willing to fight that way. How then can you be mad that you lost to someone who fought dirty? Wouldn't you have done the same thing?"

LEST WE FORGET: Hell No, We Won't Go!

Vail Daily reports: "Poo and pee dominated a public hearing Monday on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes. The law, crafted in advance of the Democratic National Convention, was adopted unanimously by the City Council. But not before a hearing laced with comedy and profanity. Representatives from some of the groups planning large-scale protests during the DNC this month said the ordinance was unnecessary and accused city officials of fear mongering. 'The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct,' said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Re- create 68 Alliance. The ordinance makes it illegal to carry certain items, such as chains, padlocks, carabiners and other locking devices. It also prohibits the possession of noxious substances. Two of the most frequently used examples of a noxious substance are a bucket of urine and a 'feces bomb.'"

Posted by Chris Bodenner at August 6, 2008 01:00 PM