May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main
 Newsweek hearts Obama Bloggers have been buzzing about Newsweek's startlingly biased cover story, "Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble" by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas. The article explains "how Obama and his team will battle the GOP onslaught." Bloggers agree that Newsweek is now officially shilling for the Obama campaign.
Just how biased is the article? At the Corner, Rich Lowry posts comments from McCain adviser Steve Schmidt: "It's one of the top five most biased pieces of journalism ever written. It's a broad attack on the Republican party. It deliberately fails to mention the increasing negative energy on the MoveOn.org side and the 527's on the left. It tries to define issues of great importance as illegitimate." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey further dissects the article and concludes, "That’s a lot of propaganda to pack into such a small space, but Wolfe and Thomas are pros." And the STANDARD's own Sonny Bunch, blogging at Doublethink, explains, "Just in case Newsweek didn’t spell it out for you in stark enough terms: Obama=America’s last great hope; McCain=Worse than Nixon."
And Newsweek might as well be considered part of the Obama campaign. At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard calls it "a truly disgraceful Newsweek article which continued to demonstrate just how in the tank media are for Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama." At Contentions, Pete Wehner says that Obama is lucky: "Few people are fortunate enough to receive the kind of love and tenderness we find in the Newsweek story." And The Corner's Kathryn Lopez discusses the moving black-and-white cover: "Nothing like the MSM driving home the 'historic moment' (you want to be a part of! Yes We Can!) point."
Luckily, Mark Salter wrote a sharp letter to the Newsweek editor, calling out the authors on their misleading statements. But, as Goldfarb noted here, "It's also worth noting what Salter does not say. After furiously denying that the campaign will make an issue out of Obama's race or religion, Salter makes no mention of whether hanging around with America-haters is fair game. But the GOP won't need to 'paint' anything to make that case." As the Gateway Pundit agrees and says of Obama's friends, the truth will "speak for itself." And no adoring Newsweek profile can stop that.
Over the weekend, bloggers discussed a few more of Obama's problems. And as these bloggers note, you have to rely on the blogs to hear about these issues, since the mainstream media just loves him too much.
First, Obama had to get rid of yet another friend. Obama fired Robert Malley, his Middle East policy adviser, because "he had held meetings" and "had been in regular contact with Hamas." (Well, at least Malley isn't a terrorist himself, like other Obama friends, right?) Power Line's Paul Mirengoff notes that Malley, "like several other of his advisers, oozes hostility towards Israel and sympathy for its enemies." And at the Corner, Mark Hemingway has more on Malley. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin asks, "what did Malley communicate to Hamas and did Malley’s contacts with Hamas have anything to do with the endorsement of Obama by Hamas’ Ahmed Yousef?" And Ace asks, "How do all these terrorist-sympathizing radicals keep mistakenly thinking that Obama is one of them?"
Then, Obama had a bit of a geography problem. You may recall Obama's interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, during which Obama said, "I’ve said [Hamas] a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."
This was unfortunate timing since Obama was the one who lost his bearings late Friday, when he said he had visited 57 states. Marc Ambinder says that Obama was tired, but adds that "if John McCain did this--if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states--the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment." As Newsbusters notes, the media is definitely not "up in his grill." Power Line's John Hinderaker says this gaffe will "be worth keeping in mind in the fall, when every time John McCain misspeaks, the Democrats' whispering campaign will suggest that he's getting senile."
But where exactly are those extra states? At The Corner, Mark Steyn asks, "Is Hillary tossing in new states just to prolong the nomination process? Or is Obama having McCainesque senior moments?" Some bloggers have other ideas. While I'm sure this is just an ill-timed and funny gaffe, I have to agree with a Flopping Aces commenter, who wrote, "Maybe if here weren’t so averse to wearing a flag pin, he’s know how many stars were on it [sic]."
After losing to Obama in North Carolina and barely winning Indiana (as of now, anyways), Hillary is nearly finished.
As I write this, Drudge is already calling Obama "The Nominee." The Fix's Chris Cillizza explains, "A substantial margin by Obama in the Tarheel State and--at best--a VERY narrow Clinton win in Indiana could be just the sign that donors, superdelegates and party leaders need to begin the process of bringing the nomination fight to an end." Marc Ambinder adds that she "needed to find a way to give superdelegates their 'Holy Moly' moment, and she failed. Absent an extraordinary intervening event, the question for Hillary Clinton now is how she ends the race."
Bloggers across the spectrum agree that it's only a matter of time before Hillary exits the race. On the right, Michelle Malkin says, "She gave it her all, found her voice, lost her voice, smiled through her lies, lied through her cries, schemed, clawed, and cackled. But alas, it was not enough." Richelieu simply calls her "Toast." And at Hot Air, Allahpundit concludes that "she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over."
The left is much the same. Kyle Moore at Comments from Left Field proclaims, "Final analysis of the primaries that have transpired last night: Obama won the nomination, again (I am of the mind that he won it back at the end of February, and for all intents and purposes, thanks to the math, he did)." And TNR's Jason Zengerle concludes, "I don't think this speech was supposed to be Hillary's valedictory, but, despite her best efforts, it sure felt that way."
Still, some bloggers, like Hugh Hewitt, think that Hillary should fight to the death. Jules Crittenden thinks she will and says, "The only way she dies soon is if the superdelegates organize themselves to club her." But as John Podhoretz noted last night, "Hillary Clinton will come under the most withering personal assault of her career should she fail to drop out of the race tomorrow. It will be far worse than the Republican 'attack machine' because it is going to come from her fellow party members, her peers, and even a great many of her supposed friends." Is this the fall of the house of Clinton at last? And more importantly, can we be finished with the Democratic primary now, please?
Yesterday, ahead of crucial primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, two people caused trouble for Obama: his wife Michelle, and his first fundraiser Bill Ayers. Will he disown them if he loses today?
Michelle Obama has been projecting anger and bitterness on the campaign trail. First, bloggers are catching on to Michelle's bitter stump speeches. Hugh Hewitt says that in her typical speech, "Michelle Obama discounts all the good that is going on in the country, skips over the deep generosity of Americans, and ignores the astonishing economic and social progress made in the U.S. since the close of W.W.II as she indicts aspect after aspect of American life." Power Line's Scott Johnson adds, "Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores." And at NRO, Yuval Levin calls her simply "America's unhappiest millionaire." Where's the hope and change?
Second, as Brian Faughnan noted here, Michelle said at a weekend fundraiser that Obama has had to hold back "anger" and "frustration" over the campaign. Don Surber explains why this is a problem for Mr. Obama: "If Obama is as his wife says he is--impatient and angry--then he is far younger than his 46 years would indicate...Youth has many things to offer. Sound judgment and patience are not among them."
And then there's Bill Ayers, the radical criminal/terrorist/Weatherman whose recent America-hating words made blogosphere headlines not long ago. Obama has claimed that he was just a child when Ayers was most radical.
But Marathon Pundit posted a photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag in 2001. Radio Patriot posted another version. Power Line's John Hinderaker notes, "This would be after Ayers and Dohrn launched Obama's career with a fundraiser at their home, and in a year when Ayers donated to Obama's State Senate campaign fund and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund." As Ace says, "Obama was but a sprightly lad of eight forty one years old." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says these photos "will again raise questions about Obama’s judgment in working with America-hating radicals and lunatics. At some point, one has to wonder whether this shows bad judgment or reveals something about Obama’s real views on America and politics."
 Remember what happens when plants have rights? There's lots of predictable buzz in the blogosphere this morning. Oprah left Trinity United because of Wright (wouldn't anyone?), the same Wright who, according to the New York Post, "stole a wife." And--surprise, surprise--the Clintons are ruthless.
But more than a few bloggers also picked up on Wesley J. Smith's article in this week's issue of the STANDARD, The Silent Scream of the Asparagus. Smith writes,
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
Most bloggers found the concept of "plant rights" laughable. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains why "plant rights" is a contradiction: "Doesn’t this also negate the animal-rights movement? After all, if humans do not occupy a privileged position in nature, then we have every right to exploit animal and plant life as, say, foxes, hawks, chickens, cows, and fish." And at Michelle Malkin, see-dubya notes another contradiction: "Sure, you vegans thought yourselves so morally pure. But according to the Swiss government, your hands are stained with the chlorophyll of innocent beings." (And see-dubya also notes that this shouldn't surprise us, coming from Europe.)
What do these people think we should eat? At the Moderate Voice, Jazz Shaw says, "It seems foolish to the point of dangerous folly to extend our sympathies so far that we cut ourselves off from the ability to feed ourselves. What will be left for us after this… a diet of air, water and… what? Some sort of rocks?" And blogger Bird Dog at Maggie's Farm has another suggestion: "One is forced to wonder whether the only dining acceptable to Greenie Gaia-worshippers would now involve cannibalism, since they want us to worry about the souls of asparagus and lobsters, and view human life as an obnoxious intrusion on an otherwise beautiful Eden." But like most of us, Jules Crittenden's diet won't change.
As the Evangelical Ecologist says, "So much for veggie burgers and ethanol."
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a salad for lunch.
Last night, Hillary appeared on The O'Reilly Factor with part one of a two-part interview in the "no spin zone."
The left was up in arms about the interview. Blogger "SilentPatriot" at Crooks and Liars, for example, complained, "I really don’t understand why Clinton (and Obama last Sunday) would agree to go on FOX and legitimize them as a news organization when they’re clearly a GOP propaganda outlet created with the sole purpose of smearing Democrats and praising Republicans." And according to TPM, MoveOn.org also condemned the interview. If this is such a great election year for the Democrats, why is the left worried about big, bad Fox News?
Right-wing bloggers were surprised by Hillary's performance. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says that Hillary came across as "pugnacious, funny (she says with a twinkle in her eye that she’d expect nothing but 'fair and balanced' coverage from Fox), quick on her feet and, within the confines of her shtick, somewhat candid. She’s a phony, but sort of a real phony." Perhaps the bubblegum-pink jacket enhanced her charm?
At the Corner, Kathryn Lopez posted emails from Republicans who found Hillary to be more likable than expected--although I'm sure the recent Jeremiah Wright episode helped with that, too. (Speaking of Wright, the big soundbyte from the interview is that Hillary called Wright's remarks "offensive and outrageous.")
But others disagree. At the American Spectator, Philip Klein says that "she was generally her phony self, giggling like a school girl, rattling off one big government program after another, and in John Edwards mode repeatedly saying 'I'm a fighter.'" Allahpundit notes that "Her Majesty did defend her socialist plan to take oil companies’ windfall profits just because they’re way too much in her considered judgment." (And although he hates to admit it, even he nonetheless found her "almost charming." What's going on here?) At the Corner, Andy McCarthy has more on her plan to take on the oil companies: "My favorite part of the interview: Hil's plan to reduce oil prices by...filing a WTO complaint. Evidently, the same folks who thought they could indict radical Islam into submission now figure they are going to break OPEC by filing a lawsuit." And Tyler Gray at Radar concludes, "The closer was a classic. O'Reilly asks Clinton if she's enjoyed the fair coverage Fox News has given her. Cue Clinton cackle." Yes, same old Hillary.
The Corner's Lisa Schiffren suspects that the interview was scheduled before Hillary's recent boost. O'Reilly may regret airing an interview that made Hillary seem like a normal, likable person, but we can rest assured that many voters won't buy her "one of the people" act.
After Jeremiah Wright's recent speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club, Obama took the advice of bloggers and denounced his former pastor once and for all:
Barack Obama said he was "outraged" by Wright’s comments at the National Press Club Monday, and "saddened by the spectacle."...
"The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago.”
Bloggers are skeptical that Obama never heard the true Wright. Michelle Malkin says, "Anyone with eyes...saw that Wright’s was a finely-honed, time-tested act." At the Corner, Byron York explains that "watching Rev. Wright for the last few days, watching the fluidity with which he moved from educational theories to musical theories to racial theories, it's hard to believe that that material hasn't been in the sermons Obama has heard Wright preach over the last 20 years, so I'm skeptical about Obama's new outrage over Wright's words."
As for Obama, Rich Lowry says, "What's been most disturbing about this entire episode is how dishonest Obama has been, from his pretense that he didn't know about Wright's radicalism to his excuse now that Wright has somehow become a different person." It simply "strains credulity," says Tom Bevan at the Real Clear Politics blog.
At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin asks, "How low did the poll numbers go? How many superdelegates had to warn him? What finally changed his mind? Because, as anyone following the story knows, Wright has been remarkably consistent." Goldfarb has the answer: "Obama sat in the pews for 20 years, indifferent to the hatred Wright spewed towards all quarters of American life. It was only when Wright turned on Obama that he repudiated him." At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran agrees that "he has only addressed his pastor’s hateful remarks when they have become a political problem for him."
But it seems that Obama might have even more problems now. Hugh Hewitt says, "Either way it creates a huge issue for voters. Is Obama a dupe, or just duplicitous? Do you want him in charge of the nation's security, making judgments about our enemies?" Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "It doesn’t address questions of judgment at all to finally act after being backed into a corner." And NRO's Jim Geraghty says that it makes Obama's race speech "look ridiculous now"--to which Mary Katharine Ham adds, "If you'd Sister Souljah-ed [Wright] instead of your grandma, maybe you wouldn't be here now."
Rev. Wright continues to sink Obama. At the Real Clear Politics blog, Tom Bevan sums up the buzz after Wright's National Press Club speech: "Jeremiah Wright has managed to do the impossible this political season: unite pundits from the left and the right in agreement about how badly he's hurting Barack Obama's quest for the White House." And bloggers across the spectrum are much the same.
Some bloggers question Wright's motives. Live-blogging the NPC speech, Michelle Malkin asked, "Is he working for the Hillary campaign? Is he angry at Barack Obama? Because he has got to know this is killing his spiritual protege’s campaign." As John McCormack noted here earlier, Wright doesn't seem like he'd even support a President Obama: "What will come of Wright if Obama captures the White House? 'I said to Barack Obama last year, "If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."" The Left agrees; Time's Joe Klein says, "Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama."
And bloggers agree that Obama must denounce and distance himself from Wright if he wants to save his campaign. Yesterday Obama said that Wright's views "don't represent my views and they don't represent what this campaign is about. But he's obviously free to make those statements." But is that denunciation enough? At the Corner, Byron York says, "It's pretty clear that the most urgent task today for the Obama campaign and its advocates in the media is to cut Obama free from Rev. Wright." Hugh Hewitt explains, "Unless Senator Obama moves quickly and decisively to completely repudiate Reverend Wright, his fall campaign will be doomed. (And even a complete repudiation of Wright may not save the nomination if Hillary Clinton stays to her own course and begins to talk about Michelle Obama's vision of America for the rest of the primary season.)" At Contentions, John Podhoretz thinks Obama still has a shot: "If Wright and Ayers had come to dominate the news in October, that would have spelled the end to Obama’s presidential hopes. The fact that they have dominated the news in April will, I suspect, prove to have been something of a lucky break." But Jennifer Rubin thinks it's too late and concludes, "Wright is twisting the knife by pointing out that Obama never denounced him and that he merely 'distanced' himself (like any good politician). This spells only bad news for Obama."
Whatever happens to Obama, I think we can all agree with Ross Douthat's characterization of Wright: "a pure creep straight out of an Augusten Burroughs memoir, who's happy to sabotage a younger, finer man who might just be the first black President of the United States in the hopes of feeding his own ego and becoming...what? The next Al Sharpton? The next Willie Horton? How vile and pathetic."
It seems like Obama's pastor problem isn't going away anytime soon.
Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday, and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey sums it up: "It wasn’t a disaster, but it still reveals Obama to be out of touch and hard to the Left. Don’t expect this to help in Indiana."
The most talked-about soundbyte from the show is Obama's admitting that Rev. Wright is a "legitimate political issue." After denouncing the NC GOP's attack ad featuring Wright, McCain seems to have changed his tune as he said after Obama's FNS interview, "I believe that Senator Obama does not share those views. But Senator Obama himself says it’s a legitimate political issue so I would imagine that many other people would share that view and it will be in the arena." Politico's Ben Smith explains that "he said, more or less, that he didn't plan to attack Obama on Wright, but that Obama--by calling the question 'legitimate'--had legitimized it." As NRO's Jim Geraghty says, "Apparently the Obama campaign expected John McCain to argue with Obama that his relationship with Wright wasn't a legitimate issue." And this is unfortunate timing for Obama: Wright provided more outrageous comments while speaking to the NAACP last night (and surely will provide more after his speech at the National Press Club this morning).
The Corner's Byron York says simply, "Wright is a continuing disaster for Obama." At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin explains why: "Wright seems to be on a speaking tour designed to test the endurance of Democratic primary voters for deeply offensive rhetoric about America, whites, Israel, Italians, and numerous other topics."
And bloggers think that the latest from Wright will certainly hurt Obama. As Marc Ambinder put it, Wright "seems not to care about Barack Obama's politics or aspirations anymore." Hugh Hewitt says, "With a week of wall-to-wall Wright ahead, it is hard to see how Obama wins Indiana, a near home-field loss which would be yet another hammer blow to the collective consciousness of the super-delegates." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey concludes, "Wright spent his time talking about differences; McCain can now start talking about what we all have in common. While Obama’s pastor reminds everyone that his Trinity United years, with Obama in attendance, focused on neurological buncombe to divide blacks and whites, McCain can unite Americans based on the American concepts of freedom and liberty."
Aside from Pennsylvania, the recurrent buzz this week has been Obama's connection to terrorists/criminals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The conservative blogosphere has been particularly dilligent in covering yet another of Obama's alarming connections. Power Line's John Hinderaker describes them as "famous radicals, and fugitives from the law, in the late 1960s and early 1970s." In 1995, they held a fundraiser for Obama, and Obama continues to defend his relationship with them despite their anti-American comments as late as 2007. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains why all of this is important: "Obama and the Left want to demand an end to the probing of the years-long Obama-Ayers association as irrelevant. Never mind that Ayers has openly bragged of bombing the Pentagon. Never mind that Obama and Ayers voted to give $75,000 to Rashid Khalidi, a Yasser Arafat protege in the PLO, during their tenure with the Woods Foundation."
The past two days, John Hinderaker posted numerous audio clips of Ayers's and Dohrn's hateful comments both past and present. Radio host Guy Benson uncovered the audio. "These clips show that Obama's pals are as unhinged as ever, and they severely undermine Team Obama's spin that Ayers and Dohrn are now 'respectable' members of the political 'mainstream,'" he said. Hinderaker added, "Obama emerged from the far-left fringe of Chicago politics, and his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn, like his relationship with spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, raises important questions about Obama's own political beliefs." Hugh Hewitt has also been covering the story, and wonders why the MSM didn't find these clips a long time ago, "What else will we be discovering about Barack Obama's friends, and about the candidate?"
Why are these clips, particularly the most recent ones, important? Obama's supporters have claimed that Obama was only a child when Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists, but Ace reminds us that they were "engaging in the hardest of hard-left America-hating rhetoric in 2007 (when, as they note, Obama was at the tender, potty-training age of 47." And Hugh Hewitt reports Politico's Mike Allen's conclusion: "[I]t undercuts Senator Obama’s, one of Senator Obama’s defenses, which is that Bill Ayers’ outrageous statements were made when he, the Senator, was in elementary school."
What does this relationship tell us about Obama? Goldfarb wrote here that "Obama doesn't view left-wing radicals the way the rest of the country does, he doesn't understand why anyone would be upset that he associates with them, and more than that he seems dismissive of any such concerns." Ace adds, "The left continues to insist that prior terrorism against the United States and her citizens, if part of a leftwing 'movement,' is all just a 'youthful indiscretion' easily forgiven and better forgotten. I don't agree, and neither do most Americans."
Obama has some more explaining to do.
Not John McCain, that's for sure.
Despite being out-spent, out-hoped, and out-changed, Hillary won yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary by about 10 points. She will continue the primary fight, even though she remains out-delegated, and unless she unexpectedly sweeps the upcoming primaries, Obama will be the likely Democratic nominee. Bloggers say this is terrible news for the Democrats, since yesterday's primary really only makes McCain look good.
First, not all Democrats support the inevitable Obama. At the Politico, David Paul Kuhn says, "Hillary Rodham Clinton won Pennsylvania with the same base of white women, working-class voters and white men that revived her candidacy in Ohio last month. The demography that has defined the Democratic race went largely unchanged, according to exit polls." But Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "A compelling front-runner should have a large majority of late-deciders breaking his way, not away from him. Obama’s supposed inevitability should have swept him into victory at this late stage. If he can’t swing undecided Democrats, he won’t win independents or centrist Republicans in November against John McCain."
And Bittergate might have contributed to Obama's loss. John Podhoretz explains at Contentions: "Obama outspent Hillary 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania because he thought he could win it. Instead, he lost it. He lost it. He said rural Pennsylvanians cling to their religion and their guns because they’re bitter and they told him to go jump in the nearest vat of Scrapple." And at the Corner, Rich Lowry says simply, “If Barack Obama can make Hillary Clinton a tribune of the people, just image what he'll be able to do for John McCain.” If his snappy comment to a reporter Monday while eating his waffle is any indication, Obama seems like the bitter one now.
Bloggers agree that the Democratic party has trouble ahead. Vodkapundit Stephen Green concludes that Hillary's win "is pretty clear and quite convincing--that Hillary will go on, that Obama is a great pitch man but a lousy closer, and that the Democratic nominating process is dysfunctional at best and bipolar at worst." McQ at QandO explains further: "Democrats are left with the unenviable choice of ending the democratic process by appealing to the superdelegates to choose now and not allowing remaining Democratic primary voters to vote, or letting this run its full course and suffering the consequences in November."
Whatever the Democrats do, it seems like it will be a lose-lose situation. Richelieu says here that the race will drag on and "the only realistic albeit long-shot Clinton scenario, a super delegate reversal and last minute Hillary coup, would rupture the Democratic party." But on the other hand, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey asks, "And just how would it look to Democrats in upcoming states to see Hillary shoved aside after winning Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 points each? It would look like Obama couldn’t beat her in a tough but fair contest, and he had to be rescued by the party establishment. That, combined with his apparent refusal to meet Hillary in another debate, makes it look like Obama is a cream puff."
Either way, fight it out, Democrats.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are facing a difficult primary in Pennsylvania today, and bloggers are sizing up each candidate's chances.
Hillary is doing well in PA. Yesterday Marc Ambinder said that Hillary's campaign has "a fierce urgency of the now." The Fix's Chris Cillizza noted that "polling conducted in the runup to a series of states that voted earlier in the year seems to suggest that surveys underestimate support for the New York Senator. Polls in California and Ohio in advance of those states' votes showed Clinton and Obama running neck and neck, but she claimed solid margins in each. Her campaign has to hope the same pattern holds true in Pennsylvania tomorrow." If the numerous polls reported by the Real Clear Politics blog are any indication, Hillary has a shot at winning by as much as 10 points.
Another big polling buzz yesterday was a Drudge report of an internal Clinton campaign poll that predicted an 11-point win. Although the Clinton campaign denied the existence of this poll, Dave at the Political Machine pointed out that "the perception is more important than the actual numbers. Appearing to be ascendant is more important than the difference between nine points and 11 points." But Hot Air's Allahpundit said the report could actually hurt her: "All it does is make it easy for the media to frame a close win as a de facto loss while giving those late deciders she’s banking on an excuse to stay home or toss a sympathy vote at Obama to keep him from getting blown out."
Still, most bloggers see Hillary coming out on top. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey predicted: "Hillary wins Pennsylvania by eight. I suspect that Obama’s support in Philadelphia will keep him competitive, but the twin blows of Crackerquiddick and his awful debate performance will have convinced Pennsylvanians that Obama needs more experience--a lot more experience." Slate's Christopher Beam agreed: "Conventional wisdom suggests that Clinton needs to win by about 10 points in Pennsylvania in order to stay in the race. Her campaign puts the number around one point. What this means, of course, is that Clinton will win by eight points--just high enough for her to stick around, just low enough for Obama supporters to claim she's done."
Even Barack Obama himself said, "I’m not predicting a win. I’m predicting it’s going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect," Politico's Ben Smith reported.
With such a close race and so many different polls, Democrats in PA may feel like each vote really counts this primary. So it's really a shame that, as Michelle Malkin says, the choice boils down to, "Will it be the snob or the liar?"
In the wake of last night's debate, bloggers disagree about the performance of the moderators, but as to who won, well, nobody thinks it was Barack.
The debate certainly defined the differences between the candidates, says the Fix's Chris Cillizza: "Clinton billed herself as a known commodity and a pragmatist, Obama cast himself as a transformational figure and an unapologetic idealist." Or, as Michelle Malkin put it, "Hillary Clinton’s message: I am not a pathological liar! Barack Obama’s message: I am not a pathological snob!”
On Hillary's win by default, Real Clear Politics's Tom Bevan explains: "He got absolutely grilled during the first 40 minutes (when most people were watching) and with every mediocre answer Hillary Clinton was there to hang the issues back around his neck one by one like so many Hawaiian leis." Townhall's Matt Lewis says, "Obama--the most likely nominee--was battered most. Aside from being beaten up, you can now add 'wimp' to his list of qualities." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock."
Not only did Hillary look better than Obama, but Obama also completely lost his message. Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau sums it up: "Hillary came off as at least marginally more polished than Barack, who seemed off his stride, defensive and altogether unconvincing in his responses about his 'small town' comments, his relationship with Rev. Wright...and his attitude toward the American flag. Let's put it this way--there wasn't much 'hope' or inspiration there." Power Line's Scott Johnson says that the "most striking" aspect of the debate "was Obama's dour attitude. The man is not a happy warrior." Macsmind's Macranger simply called it "Obama's meltdown."
And even Obama supporters admitted defeat. Andrew Sullivan mourned his candidate's fall from grace: "It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react."
Continue reading "Daily Blog Buzz: Democrats Debate and Obama Falls" »
Tonight, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will debate in PA ahead of next week's primary. Given the recent ad wars between the candidates--over Bittergate and campaign money from oil companies--the debate might provide some hilarious prime-time nastiness. Bring the popcorn!
The Bittergate ads generated the most buzz. After Obama's "elitist" remarks about PA voters, Hillary released an ad attacking him, and Obama, of course, quickly responded. Who won?
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham analyzed the ads and concluded that Hillary is "determined to keep battering" Obama, while Obama serves up "bland and standard Obama fare, but it's nice. He remains the nice guy and she remains the bully." The Swamp's Frank James notes that Hillary's ad was "falling flat" with voters: "After being shown the ad, not many people shifted their views. When asked before and after seeing the ad who they would vote for if the election were held today, Obama's support went to 44 percent to 45 percent, pre versus post. Meanwhile, Clinton's support went from 43 percent to 44 percent, pre versus post."
But both ads had a few mistakes. Josh Drobnyk at the Morning Call reported that “At least one of her supporters featured in the spot hammering Obama for his small town comments isn’t registered to vote in Pennsylvania.” He's in fact registered to vote in New Jersey. And Hot Air's Allahpundit comments on the audience booing Hillary in Obama's ad: "The left’s been singing his praises the last few days for 'counterpunching' when he’s in a tight spot, a trait that appeals to the fightin’ nutroots in someone they like and which would be cited as a failure to accept responsibility in someone they don’t, like McCain or even Hillary Clinton. Naturally left unmentioned here is the allegation that it was Obama’s own supporters who were booing her."
According to TPM, "In most of Pennsylvania's markets, the only TV ad Hillary is running right now is a negative one -- the spot hitting Obama over his 'small town' comments." Can this strategy work? Bloggers disagree.
Politico's Ben Smith says, "This is the kind of pounding Obama's critics used to say he'd never faced, and would never survive." But Swampland's Joe Klein says that "with a spate of recent polls showing Obama holding close to Clinton in Pa, it may be that this Republican-style 'values' attack just doesn't work with Democrats."
Either way, there is one person that the ad wars help: John McCain. Mary Katharine Ham notes that Obama's nice-guy ads will look "wimpy" compared to McCain. Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog says, "This should make all the Clinton staffers, consultants and supporters very, very proud. They can't win the nomination, but they are willing to participate in the effort to destroy the Democratic nominee." And at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin puts it best: "McCain doesn’t need his own money for an ad budget right now: he’s got Hillary’s."
Last week, former president Jimmy Carter made headlines with his plans to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Syria. Carter arrived in the Middle East on Sunday, and Reuters reported yesterday that "Israeli leaders shunned former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during a visit because of his plans to meet Hamas and Israel's secret service declined to assist U.S. agents guarding him," which was "unprecedented."
Reuters reports today that Carter was denied a visit to the Gaza Strip, likely because:
Despite heavy Israeli criticism since his arrival on Sunday, Carter met Naser al-Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister in the Hamas-led government formed by the Islamist group after it won parliamentary elections in 2006.
Shaer, who has frequently met Abbas since Hamas's takeover of Gaza, is an Islamist with close ties to Hamas…
Carter said on Tuesday he would use his meeting with Meshaal to "get him to agree to a peaceful resolution of differences, both with the Israelis ... and also with Fatah".
Not only have "Israel and the United States...sought to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip," but the State Department was openly against Carter's meeting with Meshaal. Bloggers agree that Carter is undermining official U.S. foreign policy and should not meet with Meshaal, although they disagree on how to handle Carter and this very bad situation.
Michael Kraft at the Counterterrorism Blog writes that while Carter does not technically violate any U.S. law, the meeting is still a bad idea: "For a high profile person like Carter to publicly meet with Hamas leader Mashaal at this stage only encourages Hamas to believe that if it remains steadfast in its 'resistance' and rhetoric, the West will try to make deals or concessions without Hamas having to yield on its support for terrorism and opposition to Israel’s existence. And why should Hamas expect anything but 'understanding' from a man who writes a book that so blatantly and erroneously tries to pin the 'Apartheid' label on Israel?" But at Contentions, Jamie Kirchick makes a case that Carter possibly violated the Logan Act, because "[b]y calling on the United States to include Hamas in peace talks, and by meeting with the leader of said terrorist group in the capital of a country with which the United States does not even maintain diplomatic relations, Carter undermines a crucial plank in America’s Middle East policy." Nonetheless, we shouldn't be surprised, as Little Green Footballs points out that Carter has been meeting with Hamas "for years," in Carter's words.
Conservative bloggers disagree on how to best handle the situation. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey says that while he understands Israel's stance, even though "Carter may be the worst ex-president in American history," he should still be protected since his visit poses huge risk to all Americans on the trip. (Isn't that reason enough that he shouldn't be there?) Jules Crittenden, however, is less sympathetic and says that the U.S. "might consider withdrawing his Secret Service protection, and let Hamas protect him."
Meanwhile at the Corner, Andy McCarthy links to further evidence that the meeting with Meshaal should not take place: "A sermon last Friday by a prominent Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament openly declared that 'the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital,' would soon be conquered by Islam." At Contentions, Abe Greenwald is confused by Carter's logic: "So, the Pope visits the United States while simultaneously former U.S. President Jimmy Carter goes to talk righteousness with the gang who wants to unseat the Pope. This must be how Democratic diplomacy is going to restore America’s image abroad." At least among terrorists.
Barack Obama's "bittergate" blew up the blogosphere over what would have been an otherwise quiet weekend. At a San Francisco fundraiser last Sunday Obama said,
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Obviously, this statement caused quite a bit of drama for Obama's campaign. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey "break[s] the statement into its component insults" and concludes, "It would be difficult to be any more condescending or insulting in so many ways to so many voters in a single sentence." And at Contentions Jennifer Rubin asks, "[J]ust how many religious voters and NRA members could there be in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia?"
And Hugh Hewitt says quite simply, "The past 72 hours built on the disconnect many were already feeling about Pastor Wright's anger, and the corrosive effect on Obama's appeal will be profound and prolonged."
What does this statement say about Obama's beliefs? At Contentions, Abe Greenwald explains: "With last Sunday’s revelation—that he looks at smalltown America and finds armed, hate-filled, irredentist religious zealots—the last piece of the Obama puzzle fell into place. He is not, it turns out, an agent of change; he is a walking checklist of modern liberal inanities." Michelle Malkin adds, "Now, we don’t need to guess anymore what he’s thinking when he’s on the campaign trail in rural and small-town Pennsylvania. Instead of hard-working, patriotic, faithful Americans, he sees 'bitter,' 'frustrated,' resentful scary people whom he’ll readily diss while sipping Chardonnay in Baghdad by the Bay." And Power Line's Scott Johnson concludes that Obama "looks down his nose at the mystifying enthusiasms of his fellow citizens as symptoms of psychic damage."
Obama, of course, tried to spin his statement and said that he regrets wording "things in a way that made people offended," which Goldfarb translates to "Sorry You're Too Stupid to Understand What He Meant." At Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball (via Instapundit) doesn't buy it: "I think we all know exactly what he meant. He meant that he regarded most Americans as bitter, small-town, gun-toting, God-fearing, xenophobic, unemployed isolationists who needed help. That is bad enough. Even worse, however, is the disgusting pretense that he actually meant something more emollient." And Michelle Malkin snarks, "Keep spinnin’, pal. You’re going to land right back into the gutter, with your bowling ball."
Still, Allahpundit says this isn't necessarily good news for Hillary either, since the Democrats' only solution is to "[n]ominate a former First Lady who’s worth $109 million." But she can just drink her troubles away.
And what would Bittergate be without a little humor? At the blog Chris Matthew's Leg, the Oracle sums up the entire affair: "It seems small town Americans are prickly about having their feelings caricatured by hyper-ambitious, Harvard-educated, self-styled Messiahs for the entertainment and ego-massaging of Left Coast beautiful people. As crazy as that sounds."
The big news today is Bill Clinton's latest campaign-ending remarks about Hillary's 1996 Bosnia trip . ABC reports:
President Clinton's described his wife's experience, saying, "There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it - what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you." Clinton then criticized the press, saying, “You woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."
Well, there are a lot of problems with this account, as Political Radar explains. For example, "Hillary Clinton actually made the exaggerated comments numerous times, including at an event in Dubuque, Iowa on Dec. 29th, in Waco, TX on Feb. 29th, and twice -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17." And another: He got the year wrong. ABC's Jake Tapper also fact-checked Bill's remarks and found them lacking in, well, facts. And the Power Line bloggers concluded that the "whole story is bogus."
Bloggers say this can only be bad news for the rapidly sinking Clinton campaign. The Vodkapundit Stephen Green says, "Bill just has to remind us that they’re both big liars, just when the last lie was fading from view. Is there any other conclusion to reach other than Clinton is sabotaging his own wife’s campaign?” And Ariel Alexovich at the New York Times's Caucus blog notes, "Perhaps he’s forgotten his own admonition after catching a lot of heat for speaking out on her behalf earlier this year. Just a month or so ago, Mr. Clinton announced that he had learned a lesson--that he should stick to simply promoting her, not defending her."
The Jawa Report's Mike Pechar provides some convincing evidence that Bill might be purposely sabotaging the campaign. After all, Bill already enjoys the perks of the presidency. And his line about Hillary forgetting "something when [she's] tired at 11:00 at night" prompts the Swamp's John Riley to ask, "But at 3 am, she'll be wide awake?"
Perhaps Bill just can't help himself. As Allahpundit says, "This sort of thing simply has to be compulsive for him. In no rational world does it make sense to reintroduce this subject, lie about it, and lie about it so clumsily that the press would have to rub his face in it even if they didn’t want to." Jennifer Rubin agrees: "Maybe he’s a hopeless, pathological fabulist. Or maybe he just doesn’t understand how hard it is to get away with easily fact-checked lies in a 24/7 news environment."
Elton John sang at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night at Radio City Music Hall. The event raised over $2.5 million for the campaign--but I'll leave the potential legal issues to others. What really made headlines after the event was Elton John's comments to the 5,000 concert-goers. The New York Daily News reports:
"I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some of the people of this country, and I say to hell with it," said John, clad in a sequined black dinner jacket, red silk shirt and red sunglasses. "I love you, Hillary, and I'll be there for you just like all the times you were there for me. Hillary should be the next President of America."
That's touching--but what is he talking about? I've seen plenty of Hillary lies and Hillary tears reported in the news, but I seem to have missed the blatant misogynistic, anti-woman rhetoric directed towards her. After all, according to the dictionary, "misogyny" is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." Not "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of Hillary Clinton." And most bloggers on both the left and right aren't too happy about being accused of misogyny just because they don't support Hillary.
Michelle Malkin explains why Hillary is really losing: "Sure, there are Neanderthals who won’t vote for any female candidate based on her gender. But there are far more anti-Hillary voters who are opposed to her pathological dishonesty–not her biological make-up." Wizbang's Cassy Fiano sums up my thoughts exactly: "She tries to present herself like a tough woman who can handle being the most powerful person in the world, someone who will have to handle being a rare female in a mostly male world (especially when it comes to foreign politics). But what happens when things don't go her way? She cries, she blames it on the 'boy's club,' she demands special treatment."
And Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice explains why the misogyny argument falls flat: "This was yet another reference to the all too common meme that anyone not supporting or disagreeing with Hillary Clinton is biased against women. So if that is fair game, then clearly we should be able to say that Sir Elton’s lack of support for Barack Obama means he’s a racist, yes?"
TNR's Christopher Orr says that John might be Hillary's Rev. Wright, as he notes, "No, it's not quite 'God damn America.' Though the technical sentiment is the same, Sir Elton is at least limiting his eternal damnation to those people (or perhaps states) who declined to vote for Hillary Clinton."
As I said, I'm curious to know more about this "misogyny" towards Hillary, because it seems to me that the only ones who are taking advantage of the gender issue are Hillary and her radical feminist supporters.
Fox News is reporting that former president Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, later this month. Hamas has been designated by the U.S. government as a "foreign terrorist organization." It is committed to Islamic fundamentalism, destroying Israel, and, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, "is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993." Joseph Abrams reports:
Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."...
Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.
Carter may claim he is working for peace, but bloggers aren't at all convinced. Allahpundit reminds us of Carter's view of Israel, so it's no surprise that he'd consider a friendly little fête with Hamas. Michael van der Galien agrees: "First Carter accuses Israel of being an Apartheid state, then he goes to meet with the leader of an organization [whose] sole purpose is to destroy Israel and to kill all Jews." And at the American Thinker, Rick Moran adds, "Hamas's latest peace offering was to send a gunman to a Jewish seminary and slaughter 9 innocent people. I'm sure Meshal and Carter will have a lot to talk about considering the former President's previous statements about Israel being the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East are perfectly in line with Meshal's own fantasies."
Who's next? After all, as the Gateway Pundit says, "There's never been a violent dangerous dictator that Jimmy Carter did not have friendly relationships with or prop up in some way, so it should come as no surprise that he is going to meet with the leader of the violent terrorist group Hamas."
For our part, we wonder whether Carter will ask Meshal about the Hamas-sponsored children's television show that showed Bush being murdered? Was production affected by the writers strike, or can we expect a new episode featuring the murder of the vice president in the near future?
Bloggers on both sides of the aisle say good riddance to Mark Penn, pollster and now-former chief Clinton campaign strategist. Penn--who continued his PR work while working for the Clinton campaign--created huge controversy last week when he met with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a free-trade deal, which Hillary opposes. He quit the campaign on Sunday, and Hillary was happy to accept his resignation.
Most bloggers say that Penn should have been fired as "chief strategist" a long time ago, since her strategy clearly wasn't working. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "He could just as well have been fired for the fumbling manner in which the campaign has declined from a coronation to a collapse." Townhall's Matt Lewis adds, "Penn was finally pushed out because he met with the Columbian government to promote a policy Clinton disagreed with. Still, Hillary's mistake was not in hiring Penn, but in not identifying the misdiagnosis of her campaign, sooner." And Time's Mark Halperin lists the many reasons why Penn deserved to be fired.
But why did she wait so long--and why now? Marc Ambinder says, "For Clinton, who has tolerated Penn's public errors in judgment because she believed in his strategy, [the Colombian meeting] was the last straw." Contentions's Jennifer Rubin also wonders why she waited until now to fire Penn: "Not for frittering away her lead, not for running on the 'experience' message in a 'change' election, not for engendering the hatred of peers, and not for his foul mouth...No, he was ousted because he was caught representing the government of Colombia in the trade deal Clinton opposes." And the Fix's Chris Cillizza says, "Penn's demotion is the latest in a series of moves made by Clinton as she seeks to convince voters and superdelegates that she remains in contention for the Democratic nomination."
Many lefty bloggers show their disdain for Penn, perhaps because his strategy for Clinton didn't really work and led to the long, nasty Democratic nomination battle. And TAPPED's Dana Goldstein explains that Penn was just one of the many problems with the Clinton campaign: "Penn's long, controversial tenure, and his axing, just echo a string of Clinton managerial mistakes, from over-relying on now ousted campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle to the whopper of this campaign season: failing to adequately contest the caucus states." While I don't really care what happens to Hillary's campaign, anything that continues the Democratic nomination fight is good news.
And right-wing bloggers like John Hinderaker explain the even worse news for Democrats: "The incident [Penn's firing for meeting with Colombians] has further damaged our relations with Colombia, which said that it showed 'a lack of respect to Colombians.' It is deeply ironic that Obama and Clinton both vow to restore America's standing in the world, while in fact impairing our relations with allies to a degree that is remarkable for candidates who haven't even been elected yet." As Rich Lowry said at the Corner, "Only in the Democratic party do you get canned (or demoted) for meeting with an ally."
The latest celebrity endorsement, via TMZ: Jane Fonda.
Andrew Malcolm at the LA Times's Top of the Ticket blog reports:
Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president...
The problem for those of a certain generation that endured the Vietnam War and the sometimes violent domestic conflict that accompanied it at home is that during Fonda's controversial wartime visit to North Vietnam, she was photographed at a Communist anti-aircraft gun battery.
According to the photo caption distributed at the time, she joined North Vietnamese soldiers there in singing an antiwar song while preparing to shoot at attacking Americans.
And she thinks Obama would make a good U.S. president. Bloggers on both the left and right agree that this is one endorsement that definitely won't help him.
For one thing, Fonda contrasts sharply with John McCain. Power Line's Scott Hinderaker says, "Close observers of the campaign may recall that Senator McCain admits to having been tied up at the time of the 1969 Woodstock festival. He was still tied up at the time of Fonda's 1972 visit to Hanoi." And Goldfarb wrote earlier today, "Part of Obama's electability argument is that he can win in otherwise red states, but having Jimmy Carter and Jane Fonda endorse...that isn't going to play well in Kansas." Ed Morrissey adds that this endorsement might even help McCain: "McCain’s narrative as a Vietnam War POW who suffered torture while Fonda gave his captors photo-ops will resonate even further if she takes to the stump on Obama’s behalf."
If blogger sentiment is any indication of how Americans feel about Fonda, then this could mean big trouble for Obama. For example, blogger McQ at QandO says, "For many Vietnam and Vietnam era vets she symbolized those who crossed the line from responsible dissent to materially aiding the war effort of the enemy. Legally she got a pass. But in the minds of many veterans she is a despicable creature that few have forgiven."
And even some lefty bloggers are disgusted by Fonda and think this endorsement is no good. Like Dustin at Comments From Left Field says, "Even if she is just another over-the-hill Hollywood elite answering an ambush reporter’s question she’s damning company to keep. What Fonda represents to the many Americans is everything that’s wrong with liberalism and all she can do is harm the Democratic nominee."
If Jeanne Assam didn't convince you that individuals should have the right to carry a gun, perhaps this case of a Des Moines pizza deliveryman who shot an armed robber in self defense will:
An armed pizza deliveryman told Des Moines police that he shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint Thursday night outside a south-side apartment building...
The suspect, Kenneth Jimmerson, 19, was arrested when he later called for medical help. Jimmerson was hospitalized Friday with multiple gunshot wounds and faces a charge of first-degree robbery.
Melanie Stout, 18, who allegedly placed the pizza order, was arrested for conspiracy.
Spiers, who has a va | | | |
