October 20, 2008

10/20: The Ultimate Obamacan?

Unsurprisingly, conservative bloggers are playing down the importance of Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. Jonathan Garthwaite calls it the "non-story of the year" while Hugh Hewitt asserts that "only Manhattan-Beltway elites think this matters." Several bloggers on the right are questioning Powell's motives and accusing him of endorsing Obama out of a desire to to curry favor with the media.

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, view Powell's endorsement as an unquestionably positive development for Obama, although they differ as to how much it will ultimately impact the race. Several lefty bloggers are emphasizing how much respect Powell commands among "self-described moderates and independents". They're suggesting that Powell's endorsement could push a not-insignificant number of undecided voters toward Obama. Other liberal bloggers believe that the significance of Powell's endorsement lies not in its persuasive value, but in its ability to capture the media's attention for the next 24 hours and prevent John McCain from establishing a "comeback narrative".

OBAMA: Endorsements Rarely Matter, But...

Several liberal bloggers believe that Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama is a big deal:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Okay, I just actually watched the Powell endorsement on my Tivo, and I think it's a more devastating blow to John McCain than I initially would have thought. Of course this won't move real liberals, who don't like Powell much and are already committed to Obama anyway. Nor will it move conservatives, who don't like Powell either. But there are people out there -- lots of people -- who, just like Powell, voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and then again in 2004 even though maybe Bush was a bit too conservative for their tastes. Now those people maybe regret having done so and see that Bush was a disastrous president. But at the same time, the Democratic Party seems to have shifted left, and nominated a relatively green figure, while the GOP nominated someone who has a reputation for moderation. And now here's Powell, probably the only Republican moderate with a meaningful national profile, speaking in detail about problems with McCain, about the process of growing disillusioned with McCain, and vouching for Obama's readiness to lead and fitness for office. [...] It's a signal to every right-of-center person who maybe thinks the GOP has gotten too right-of-center that Obama's okay."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "What struck me was that Powell's rationale for supporting Obama tracked very closely with some of the harshest critics of Sen. McCain, despite the fact that he used less cutting words to express them. There were three key points he hit. First, he questioned McCain's unsteady and erratic response to the economic crisis. He didn't use the word 'erratic' but he might as well have [...] Second, he questioned McCain's 'judgment', particularly but it would seem not exclusively in his decision to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate, someone Powell said was unqualified to serve as president. Third, he said he was 'disappointed' in McCain's sleazy campaign tactics. [...] It's quite a blow for McCain on each point. But the most galling must be what Powell said about his judgment, his steadiness in moment's of crisis. Powell and McCain are both in their early 70s. Obama is a quarter century younger. And in so many words Powell said that compared to Obama, McCain simply lacks the seasoning, the maturity to be president."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Powell didn't just tacitly offer a vague endorsement, he offered his unapologetic support to Obama, while blasting what's become of his old friend, John McCain. He sounded like a man who barely recognizes what's become of today's GOP. For self-described moderates and independents, Powell remains a widely admired figure. What's more, few if any Americans enjoy the media adulation that Powell has, which means coverage of this morning's announcement is likely to be very strong. With that in mind, Powell's endorsement this morning may very well have a significant impact."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Powell didn't just endorse Barack Obama -- he also systematically dismantled the entire rationale for John McCain's presidential campaign. [...] Whatever you think of Colin Powell, in the context of our national discourse, an endorsement of Barack Obama from a Republican military figure like Powell is a severe blow to McCain's smear campaign."
• dday: "This is devastating for McCain, of course, because Colin Powell was John McCain before John McCain became John McCain, if that makes any sense at all. He was the Very Serious GOP Daddy who everybody in the media establishment fell all over admiring. Heck, even Oliver Stone gives him a wet kiss in 'W.' And so Powell's rejection of McCain shows that the GOP nominee is no longer worthy of admiration."

Other liberal bloggers don't think Powell's endorsement of Obama is particularly momentous, but they believe that it makes it more difficult for McCain to regain momentum:

• Ezra Klein: "I don't think that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is a huge deal one way or the other. It strikes me as more of a 'you don't need a weatherman -- ahem -- to know which way the wind is blowing' sort of thing. But the current dynamics of the race are that the election is in 17 days, and McCain needs something to upset the dynamics while Obama needs to keep producing stories and events that sustain his momentum and run out the clock. This is one of those events. The Obama campaign can be pretty sure of what's going to lead in tomorrow's Monday papers."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Is this game changing? It's unclear as of yet whether Powell's endorsement is more significant for any persuasive value it may have or rather for what it says about how moderate Republicans may break this year. But one thing is clear is that, as Mark Halperin noted on CNN, the news coverage of Powell's endorsement will take up precious days of a news cycle thsat McCain can ill-afford to lose."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "[This] makes it much tougher for any kind of 'McCain comeback' narrative to break through."

OBAMA II: Powell Endorsed Him? Ho-Hum.

Conservative bloggers are portraying Powell's endorsement of Obama as a non-story:

• Townhall's Garthwaite: "Non-story of the year."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Colin Powell endorses Obama. Dog bites man?"
• Michelle Malkin: "The media's in a tizzy over Colin Powell's Meet the Press endorsement of Barack Obama this morning. It's not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to his pro-Obama murmurings over the last four months. How will people outside the Beltway bubble respond? Yawn. [...] The press only loves maverick Republicans when they jump in bed with Democrats. Just ask John McCain."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "[This] endorsement moves, what, the .1% of the vote waiting around to hear what Colin Powell thinks of McCain-Obama? Secretary Powell is a great American and much admired, but only Manhattan-Beltway elites think this matters. McCain on [David] Letterman, Sarah Palin on SNL and of course Joe the Plumber are of far greater consequence that Secretary Powell's blessing."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I don't think this will have the same impact it may have had in the summer, for two reasons. First, I think most people expected Powell to endorse Obama, and most of us expected it at the Democratic convention. [...] Coming as it does now, it may impact some voters who still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of experience. Otherwise, I don't think anyone likely to be swayed by this endorsement didn't already factor it into their thinking. In August, Obama could have used this when he fumbled the Russo-Georgian conflict. Now, though, foreign policy has dropped to the second tier for most voters. They're more interested in economic issues, and I think Joe the Plumber has more resonance than Colin Powell at this point in the election."

Several righty bloggers are arguing that Powell endorsed Obama because he wants to curry favor with the media:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Never mind abandoning a political party ... what would make a General turn against a friend of 25 years who had sacrificed so much for this nation -- in favor of a man who just arrived on the scene? I believe Colin Powell when he says this decision had nothing to do with race. Instead, my guess is that it had everything to do with rehabilitating his image with the media (which was tarnished when he became Bush's Secretary of State)..."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Colin Powell has long been known as someone who cares enormously about the opinion of the elite media -- and, frankly, elites of all kinds. Clearly, his reputation has taken a beating in those rarified circles ever since he (along with Joe Biden, incidentally) supported the Iraq war. He's desperate to regain his supposed 'stature,' and this is a quick and easy way to do it. Obviously, if his support for Barack were predicated on principle alone, Powell would have endorsed him back in July, when Barack was courting him, well before the Democrat Convention -- when it would have been huge. Instead, he chose to wait until the media had anointed Obama a certain winner, and the polls are encouraging. Look, everyone has to do what they have to do to get by. And for Powell, it may have been that the chance to rehabilitate himself among the Manhattan and DC cocktail party elites was simply too tempting to pass up. So be it."

Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan praises Powell's decision: "Powell says a lot of what this blog has been expressing these past six weeks: McCain's hotheaded response to Georgia and the economic crisis, combined with this selection of Sarah Palin and deployment of pure Rovianism as a tactic, has tarnished his reputation permanently and rendered Obama's calm, maturity in selection of running mate, and care to be always inclusive of all Americans that much more appealing. [...] Powell is really taking a stand in defense of decent, inclusive, moderate Republicanism. It's amazing it has taken Powell to say this publicly, to stand up against the [Karl] Rove machine and say enough. But it is welcome nonetheless. One more thing: Powell's endorsement of Obama is privately echoed by many moderate Republicans across the country and in Washington. It isn't about race. It's about the need to remake conservatism anew, and to restore to fiscal and foreign policy the kind of conservative prudence and restraint of [Dwight] Eisenhower."

OBAMA III: $150 Million Man

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system after it was reported that Obama raised a staggering $150M in September:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Amazing. There should be no doubt now, that his not accepting public financing was the right decision."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The decision to forsake the public campaign finance system was one of the best moves the Obama campaign made. It made Senator Cranky even crankier -- and annoyed some of the pundits, like David Broder, who love and adore Senator Cranky. But, it was a brilliant move. Over $150 million. Wow. Just wow."
• Benen: "I vaguely recall some grumbling in Democratic circles a couple of months ago, with many wondering whether the Obama campaign's fundraising would be strong enough to justify opting out of the public financing system. $150 million in September seems to answer the question."
• Klein: "This does more than simply pump Obama's campaign full of money (and for that matter, dissuade Republican donors of putting money into a cause as unlikely as McCain). In normal years, the DNC has to split its funds between downticket races, party building, and supporting the presidential candidate. This year, as you've heard, the RNC is the only institution keeping McCain viable. But for once, the DNC is freed from such presidential level responsibility, which is why you're hearing rumblings that they're going to inject $20 million -- $20 million! -- in state legislature races meant to construct the majorities needed to take control of congressional redistricting in 2010. Obama having a lot of money, in other words, also means the rest of the party has a lot of money, and can spend it on things that are not Obama. They can spend it on building a majority."

OBAMA IV: Would McCain Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's response to Obama's Sept. fundraising numbers, in which the GOP nominee complained, "History shows us where unlimited amounts of money are in political campaigns, it leads to scandal":

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[The McCain camp's] assault on the small donor is an assault on our democracy itself. They are saying that unless you can give a $200 contribution, then you don't deserve to participate, that you are committing a fraud against our country. It's insulting, no doubt, but it's tilting at windmills. [...] Obama has taken no PAC money. His average contribution was $84 dollars in a month in which he raised $150 million. These individual contributors can't buy access because there's too many of them. No one stands out. And Obama isn't beholden to any constituency, since he can afford to lose support and still have plenty more to fall back on. No special interest has bought Obama, rather, the American people have."
• Atrios: "While McCain's real position is just 'WAH OBAMA HAS MORE MONEY THAN ME IT'S NOT FAIR,' what he's saying might get some play in the media. But given the current contribution limits, and the volume of donations, the idea that even a maxed out donor could exert financial influence over a candidate is pretty ludicrous. More than that, even large donation bundlers are being swamped by small donors. Obama solved the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics by hauling in too much money, and doing so without corporate PAC money. It'd be pretty hard to raise enough money to get his attention because he's raised so much."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Does allowing more and more people to donate below the legal limit lead to scandal? If so, how? If anything, it would seem to decrease the possibility of scandal: people often worry that politicians will listen more closely to their contributors than to ordinary citizens, but the more ordinary citizens contribute, the less likely that becomes. Likewise, a candidate who got only a small number of contributions might not want to alienate those few people who donate to her campaign, but a candidate who gets lots of donations is, by definition, less dependent on any individual donor for contributions. So that part [of McCain's statement] makes no sense."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Paul Mirengoff thinks McCain should continue pressing this argument: "Obama didn't break his promise to rely on public financing (if McCain did too) for nothing. Shouldn't McCain emphasize, in the waning days of the campaign, that none of Obama's other many promises should be believed, in light of the fact that Obama broke this fundamental one? Of course, having kept his own promise, it's not clear that McCain has the resources necessary to get this, or any other, message out."

MCCAIN: Apparently I Live In "Fake" Virginia...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the McCain camp after McCain senior adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said that Northern Virginia is not "real" Virginia:

• Jed L: "There is no level of desperation to which the flailing McCain campaign will not stoop. It is now their official position that the suburbs of our nation's capitol, home to millions of Americans, are not 'real' because they aren't 'Southern in nature.'"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The McCain campaign says that the Pentagon, and those who died there on 9/11, weren't 'real' Virginia."
• Yglesias: "Of course it's true that there's a contrast between those portions of Virginia that are part of Metro DC and the rest of the state and probably correct to say that the rest of Virginia is 'more Southern in nature.' But still, lots of folks live in Northern Virginia. They're perfectly real people. And they live in real places. And progressive candidates with their base in NoVa won the governor's mansion in 2001 and 2005 and the Senate election in 2006, are poised to win the state's other Senate seat in 2008 and currently are winning in the presidential sweepstakes. It all seems real enough to me."
• Atrios: "It's long been somewhat frustrating that while we all know that liberals are supposed hate America, it's actually Republicans who hate Americans. Lots of them. Anyone not of their tribe gets chucked out of the country."
• Mark Kleiman: "Having announced Thursday that the parts of the country that are voting for Obama aren't 'the real America,' the 'pro-American' parts where 'hardworking people' live, the McCain campaign now says that the parts of Virginia where the GOP ticket is going to get slaughtered seventeen days from now aren't 'the real Virginia'. My God, it must hurt to lose an election based on areas that don't even exist!"

Open Left's tremayne responds with sarcasm: "Barack Obama has surged into the lead in the superficial parts of the United States. For example, he is solidly ahead along the Pacific coast which is comprised of newer 'fancy' states. Obama is also ahead in the phony Great Lakes states and the equally inauthentic states of the Northeast. Not surprisingly, Obama is popular in the D.C. area and in much of Virginia. In real Virginia, however, John McCain is dominant. McCain is authentic and naturally his message resonates with real Americans. Other parts of real America include: Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky (well most of it), Tennessee, South Carolina and the gulf coast states. In fact, there's a whole stack of genuine states above Texas extending vertically all the way to North Dakota (where things get iffy). And of course Idaho, Utah and Wyoming have almost no fake people in them. Unfortunately for McCain the courts have consistently ruled that superficial people have almost as much a right to vote as the authentic ones. And right now the authentic people appear to be outnumbered."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Is The Conservative Cocoon?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions -- think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites -- that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn't just a matter of an MSM that wouldn't report the good news. The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin's difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren't terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump -- Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN -- and take them to eleven.

So when I say that a populist conservatism needs elites, what I really mean is that it needs elites who can step outside this cocoon and see national politics more clearly -- whether they work for conservative outlets, MSM outlets, or something else entirely. This is not, I repeat not, a matter of listening to Beltway conventional wisdom instead of the practical wisdom of the heartland. It's a matter of recognizing political realities, instead of denying them outright -- whether you're in DC, New Hampshire, or Wasilla. [...]"

LEST WE FORGET: Dream About You Not Sexual, Coworker Reports

From The Onion:

"BURLINGTON, VT -- In an impromptu conversation held in the elevator of your office building Monday, coworker Andrew Pagano announced that he had a dream about you the previous night. In the moments following the announcement, Pagano added that he 'just thought you'd find that funny' before assuring you that the dream wasn't what you're thinking.

'I just thought it was weird, just because you and I have been working so many hours together on this Hendricks account, and now you're popping up in my dreams,' said Pagano, chuckling nervously and taking a single step back. 'Ha, no, totally G-rated.'

He then issued a number of additional statements in rapid succession, confirming that you had all your clothes on, the dream was really short, and it was actually one of those dreams where no one has faces. Upon reaching the door to your office, witnesses said, he playfully slugged you on the shoulder and walked back to his cubicle."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 20, 2008 01:25 PM