November 06, 2008

11/6: Sticking By Sarah

Bloggers on the left and right continue to debate the ideological implications of Barack Obama's victory. Liberal bloggers believe that Obama's win -- along with the increased Dem majorities in the House and Senate -- gives Dems a clear mandate. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are either (a.) downplaying the size of Obama's win, or (b.) arguing that Obama "did not obtain his vote totals by running as a progressive".

In other news, conservative bloggers are blasting the anonymous John McCain aides who leaked unflattering stories about Sarah Palin to FOX News and Newsweek. Michelle Malkin complains: "The anonymous trashing of Sarah Palin by blabbermouth McCain aides...is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting." It's clear that conservative bloggers like Palin a lot more than they like McCain, and that they will aggressively fight back against anything that could potentially undermine Palin's political future. It's also clear that righty bloggers aren't about to forgive Palin's critics in the conservative intelligentsia.

OBAMA: The People Have Spoken, And They Want Change

Liberal bloggers believe that Obama earned a clear mandate with his resounding win:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "[This was] a magnificent victory for Barack Obama. And bear in mind that the campaign, in its final stages, was really about different philosophies of governing. This wasn't like the 2004 campaign, which was essentially fought over fake issues -- Bush running on national security and social issues, then claiming that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security. In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "Exit polls show that 51% of voters want government to 'do more.' And while 71% of voters said they expected their taxes to go up under Obama's administration, they still voted for him by huge margins. Just 44% of voters (right around McCain's popular vote percentage) believe that Obama is 'too liberal' while 1 in 2 voters thought his ideology was 'just right.' Democrats swept races across the country not in spite of being progressive on the issues that matter most to the American people, but because of it. But if the GOP want to live in its dreamworld where America is a really a 'center-right nation' and suffer more crushing loses in the process, that's fine by me."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "In 2004, George W. Bush won less than 51% of the popular vote, 53% of the available electoral votes, and enjoyed a vote margin of 3 million. In 2008, Barack Obama won 52.3% of the popular vote, 65% of the available electoral votes (67% after North Carolina is called for him), and enjoyed a vote margin of about 7.4 million. [Robert] Novak insisted that Bush's totals 'of course' constituted a 'mandate,' while Obama's do not. Indeed, Media Matters had an item yesterday noting that after the 2004 race, when Bush won a second term with the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president's re-election since 1916, major media figures still rushed to award Bush a 'mandate.' Obama not only cruised to a major victory, but his party saw major gains in the House, Senate, and state houses. If Obama doesn't have a 'mandate' for his policy agenda, the word has no meaning."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus -- a reliable parrot of conventional wisdom -- joins the Punditburo's insistence that the largest progressive mandate in contemporary American history means that obviously -- clearly! -- America remains more conservative than ever. [...Marcus writes that] Obama's 'opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist.' Yet, that supposed 'leftist extremist' won the largest presidential mandate in the last generation. And somehow, having done that, we are supposed to believe that means he should tack to the right. Say what?"

Liberal bloggers are also urging Obama and Dem lawmakers to be bold:

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "With the economy in so much worse shape, with things bound to get worse before they get better, with the problems so big, we had better deliver. Big problems require big solutions. Going slow, being careful, being cautious, trying to solve one little problem at time in a modest, incremental way: it's just not going to work. Barack Obama ran on change. The times require change. Let's not let incrementalists and small-minded ambition keep the big change we need from happening."
• digby: "[Dems] had better keep in mind that they were elected by a lot of new voters and liberals too and they are going to need very high levels of support for a sustained period of time to get anything done. I don't expect them to cater to the base like [Karl] Rove did, but they'd better not take it too much for granted either. We've seen what happened after 2006, when they raised expectations that they would fight Bush hard on the war. Their approval ratings ended up worse than Bush's because they were loathed not only by the right wing (who will loathe them no matter what they do) but by their own base as well. They simply can't afford to let that happen again."

OBAMA II: What Landslide?

Conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama did not win a landslide victory:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Barack Obama's victory last night was no doubt historic, and the Democrats, as expected, extended their leads in the House and the Senate. But their victory was no landslide, despite what appeared to be overwhelming advantages. Obama won around 52 percent of the popular vote, defeating John McCain by between five and six points. That's nothing like the true landslides of the past: [Ronald] Reagan by ten points in 1980 and 18 in 1984; [Richard] Nixon by 23 in 1972; or even [George H. W.] Bush by eight in 1988. And yet, with hindsight, it is remarkable how much Obama had going for him."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Sure, Barack Obama won an impressive electoral victory, but the popular vote in many states was quite narrow, the margin overall was decisive but not overwhelming and, moreover, the House and Senate losses were modest by historical standards. It wasn't 1980 or 1984, to be sure. Considering the incumbent president's unpopularity and the economy, one might have expected far bigger margins."
• RedState's Neil Stevens: "[Dwight] Eisenhower 1952 and 1956. [Lyndon] Johnson 1964. Nixon 1972. Reagan 1980 and 1984. Those elections set the standard for a blowout. Obama? His win doesn't look like those other Presidents I just listed. He's just slightly below average, sorry. So rest at ease, Republicans. Even if this win isn't a fluke, it's not a permanent game changer."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Oliver Willis responds: "Conservatives, quit trying to say that Barack Obama didn't kick your asses from coast to coast. McCain lost by 6%, twice Bush's winning margin in 2004. Also, the margin of victory is near 7 million votes. And you lost by 176 electoral votes (and likely 15 more when North Carolina is officially called). [...] As our President-elect said, 'Change has come to America'."

Meanwhile, The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll argues that Obama did not run as a liberal: "After a hard-fought campaign nearly two years in the making, last night a candidate was elected president of the United States. That candidate promised to 'cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families', expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000, and enact 'a net spending cut' for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government. These are core conservative beliefs. Anyone who claims yesterday's election was the end of conservatism simply was not paying attention to the campaign."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias disagrees: "The day before the election, Barack Obama was a socialist. The day after the election, he only won because he's a centrist in line with the views of 'center-right' America. [...] The truth is that Obama ran to the progressive center left behind in the wake of conservatism's catastrophic failures."

PALIN: The Rightroots Leap To Her Defense

Conservative bloggers are blasting the anonymous McCain aides who leaked unflattering stories about Palin to FOX News and Newsweek:

• NRO's Michael Ledeen: "The continued trashing of Sarah Palin -- IMHO the most qualified and by far the most exciting candidate of the four -- is very disappointing, and the rash of unseemly whining from the McCain camp just shows once again why so many of us were depressed when he won the nomination."
• Malkin: "The anonymous trashing of Sarah Palin by blabbermouth McCain aides who are leaking to Fox News is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. [...] Let's assume the rumor-mongers are telling the truth for a moment. Who does it damn more: Sarah Palin or McCain and his vetters who green-lighted her for the vice presidential nomination? Don't need an Ivy League degree to figure that one out. Sarah Palin worked her heart out. She energized tens of thousands to come out who would have otherwise stayed home. She touched countless families. I didn't agree with everything she said on the campaign trail. But two fundamental conservative stands she took mattered greatly to me: She vigorously defended the Second Amendment and the sanctity of life more eloquently in practice than any of the educated conservative aristocracy. And she did it all with a tirelessness and infectious optimism that defied the shameless, bottomless attempts by elites in both parties to bring her and her family down. Shame on the smearers who don't have the balls to show their faces."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper. We're tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. [...] We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates. It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers. [...] Initial list: (1.) Nicolle Wallace (2.) Steve Schmidt (3.) Mark McKinnon."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I assume this is a sign that Maverick's headed back to the center, because if he thinks the base is sore at him now, wait until his cronies' attempts to scapegoat their idol start percolating."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "That such a bunch of clueless campaign hacks would then go out and trash Palin behind her back..."
• Glenn Reynolds: "What a bunch of losers. The McCain campaign had its flashes of brilliance, but overall it was a lousy effort. Post-election slams against Sarah Palin merely underscore its not-ready-for-primetime quality, and would make me, if I were a Republican candidate, -- or donor -- far less interested in having anything to do with the slammers in a future campaign."
• Rubin: "Gosh, if you had to come up with a plot to endear her to the base, increase anger against the McCain bumblers and lift the fighting spirits of conservatives you couldn't come up with a better idea than continuing to trash Palin in the media. Is it a Rovian plot? [...] But all of this, I must admit, also reflects on the non-leadership qualities of the former presidential nominee. John McCain was never known as one to resolve conflicts or knock heads. That's how he wound up bankrupting his own campaign in the primary and then devolving into bitter infighting in the general election. Watching his team engage in vicious, public fighting suggests that perhaps he was never the ideal person for a chief executive role. After all, if the campaign was this bad, imagine what the White House would have been like."

EMANUEL: The Netroots Are Conflicted

Liberal bloggers are ambivalent about the news that Obama has offered the WH Chief-of-Staff position to IL Rep. Rahm Emanuel:

• Ezra Klein: "I'm of mixed feelings on Rahm Emanuel's selection as Obama's White House chief of staff. Emanuel is a brawler. He's legendarily tough and effective and ruthless. [...] But part of Emanuel's job will be to advise on what is politically possible. And he has always portrayed himself as a hard-headed realist on such matters, with a late-term Clintonite's allergy to ambition. In his book The Plan, Emanuel warns Democrats away from attempting universal health insurance or comprehensive reform, and suggests they content themselves with expanding S-CHIP. [...] Of course, Emanuel won't be setting priorities. He'll simply be advising President Obama while he sets priorities, then working to carry them out. If Obama says the administration should do universal health care, then Emanuel will do it. And he's probably exactly the sort of ruthless political fighter you'd want in service of that project. But it's also possible he'll work to persuade Obama not to do universal health care, and instead to take a dimmer view of the potential for change, reform, and improvement. [...] This is a selection that suggests Obama is taking the politics of congressional persuasion extremely seriously, and in that sense, it's heartening. What we don't know is whether he's also signaling agreement with the play-it-safe governance that Emanuel has long championed."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Rahm gets mixed reviews around here, to put it mildly, on his record as a member of the House leadership. We know he's a rough-and-tumble type, but he's also shown us a cautious side, as when he resisted for many months in giving his assent to the move to bring contempt of Congress votes against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to the House floor. But even in his caution, he was motivated by brass tacks considerations that were never at odds with that rough-and-tumble reputation. He resisted the vote because he was considering it from an electoral perspective, as he appears to consider almost every issue. Will it help or hurt Dems next election day? That was always his bottom line."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "With Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, I think we can safely bet that Blue Dogs will have a friend in the White House."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I don't share Rahm's political objectives -- he's the architect of NAFTA, a 'free trade' hound and the godfather of the Heath Schuler immigration bill, which seeks to privatize the border and give illegal immigrants no path to citizenship. But Rahm doesn't do 'bipartisan' -- which I've always sort of liked about him."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz likes the idea of Emanuel as Obama's CoS: "I think it's a good idea. Emanuel knows how to run a staff, and a White House staff at that. He also knows the Hill and has the respect of leadership in both chambers (and both parties). He knows how to win politically and policy-wise. One of the biggest mistakes that a president can make is choosing an inexperienced or ineffective CoS, and Obama is now showing that he's learned from history. [...] To address Ezra's worries that the potential Chief of Staff is a policy minimalist: Perhaps. I think a lot of that reputation comes from working with Bill Clinton and co-writing a book with Bruce Reed, a man not known for his big ideas. Emmanuel has been advising Obama since the primaries, so I'm not too worried that Obama's approach to policy making will change that drastically even if the Chicago representative acquires a larger role. But Emanuel had a big idea before a lot of other people did: That Democrats could take back the House of Representatives and change the electoral map in the country. And then he went out and did it. If you're looking for a bold Democrat to run your White House operation, I'm not sure you could find anyone bolder."

EMANUEL II: Meet The New Politics, Same As The Old Politics

Conservative bloggers are very critical of Obama's choice for WH CoS:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The pick of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's Chief of Staff is a signal that Obama's 'post-partisan' image is just that -- image. [...] There's no question in my mind that picking Emanuel sets up the White House to be an aggressive operation ready to ram through Obama's spread-the-wealth-surrender-overseas agenda."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "If you're reading tea leaves for what kind of Administration Obama will run, Emanuel does not exactly embody 'new politics' and a 'post-partisan' future. He's a Chicago Democrat who worked as a 'senior adviser and chief fundraiser' (his words) for Mayor [Richard] Daley and later worked in the Clinton White House, and he's known as a hardball-playing scorched-earth arch-partisan in the Tom DeLay mold."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Obama's apparent selection of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is an extremely disconcerting (if not wholly surprising) first indication on the 'which Obama will we get' question. It suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works. [...Obama] will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief's office. Not a good first sign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We've Come A Long Way, But We Still Have A Long Way To Go

digby laments the passage of Proposition 8 in CA, which bans gay marriage:

"How people can vote for the first African American president in American history, with all that implies, while simultaneously voting to discriminate against gays is testament to the incoherence of American politics and the lack of clear cut philosophy guiding people's choices. Everyone says there's too much ideology in our politics but I'd say there isn't enough. There isn't enough common sense either. Discrimination against others just because you don't like how they live their lives is against the very essence of the two pillars of America -- liberty and equality. To fail to see that even as you vote for an historic, important first African American is incoherent.

I keep hearing about how this will right itself in the long run, that it's just a matter of waiting until this new generation gets old enough and then gay rights will magically be 'granted.' I hope that's true. But to paraphrase a saying that's been overused lately -- in the long run all of today's gay partners and gay parents will be dead. These soothing tones of 'patience' and 'don't worry' don't mean much when you consider that you only have one life to live."

LEST WE FORGET: Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, 'It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 6, 2008 01:34 PM