- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Times responds
Posted by on 2.23.08 @ 4:40PM
The Times gets into the messy issue of what the heck they were thinking. You can go to the reader thread that I pointed out the other day where they have an "All Hands On Deck" approach to taking questions, and to their credit, they respond to the arguments.
Friday, February 22, 2008
RE: 60 Minutes
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 5:37PM
Wow. Kind of reminds me of that Ben Barnes guy they dragged out of nowhere to snare GWB on the ANG 'scandal' on that 60 Minutes hit piece.
McCain Says He's On 'Solid Ground' On Financing
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 5:00PM
Sen. John McCain, in a just completed call with bloggers, said he was confident his campaign was on "solid ground" in asserting its right to withdraw from the public financing system after once registering for--but never receiving--public funds.
His comments came after I asked him to respond to a Washington Post story from today, which reported that the Federal Election Commission has not yet granted McCain's request to withdraw from the public financing system, a development that could severely impair his ability to spend money. If he were to be locked into the public system, he would be limited to spending $54 million through the nominating process, which officially runs until September's Republican National Convention. And he has already spent $49 million.
McCain said that the situation Dick Gephardt faced in 2004 was "exactly comparable to ours," because he first applied for but then opted out of the public funding system before actually accepting any money.
"I think we are on solid grounds, and we will continue to maintain that position, and there is ample precedent for it, not just an idea of ours," McCain said.
I followed up by asking him about some of the thornier issues
raised by the Washington Post story,
including the idea that he may have used potential federal matching
funds to expedite his ability to get on the ballot in Ohio as well
as collateral for a loan, which some election lawyers would argue
should lock him into the public financing system. Also, with four
vacancies on the six-member commission, the FEC will not be able to
reach a quorum
to make a determination on this issue in the near future.
McCain responded by saying he was "not an expert" on the details but that he could have his lawyer, former FEC commissioner Trevor Potter, discuss it with me further.
As for the idea that his federal funding certification was used to speed up his ability to get on the ballot in Ohio, he told me, "I don't know anything about Ohio, but I'm confident we could have gotten on the ballot under any circumstances, so I don't know about whether we had to use that vehicle or not."
"We are on solid ground," he reiterated noting that his campaign has been advised by several experts in addition to Trevor Potter. "I am not an expert on the Federal Elections Commission, but I am blessed with having one of the most respected former chairmen of the FEC as my top advisor on this issue."
A Lesson to us All
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 3:47PM
Two years ago Kurt Westergaard was in his Copenhagen home drawing pictures. One of them was of the "alleged" Muslim prophet, Muhammad. Now Westergaard is homeless. More in the Feb. 20th Der Speigel.
60 Minutes Jumps the Shark
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 3:32PM
Everybody, this is up on Drudge now, and it is appalling. It purports to describe how Karl Rove supposedly asked an Alabama woman to take photos of former Gov. Don Sieglman (D-AL) in an extramarital affair. As if.
In light of this week's huge focus on media bias and just slipshod, poorly sourced or validated stories, I warn everybody in advance against this sleazy piece of tabloid journalism as promised by the masters of the genre, 60 Minutes.
As an Alabama journalist for eight years, I have been following from afar (her stories started breaking after I moved back to DC) this lady's utterly baseless, frankly nutty, string of allegations involving supposed skullduggery related to the conviction of former Gov. Don Siegelman. I do not know of a single legitimate journalist in Alabama who takes seriously a single thing she says. And we're not talking mere local yokel journalists; we're talking recent Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists -- who do NOT lean right, but who, to my personal knowledge, are either center or left of center in their personal views.
This lady making the allegations actually testified before a congressional committee last year, and the buzz about all her allegations suddenly died. Why? Because not even the lefty Dems found her credible. Question: Why, after all the stories she has told, including having a chance to testify before the committee, does she just now suddenly start telling this story about Rove when it never was part of her narrative before? Repeat: NEVER part of her story before. (See paragraph three of this story today.)
And why would any self-respecting journalist (which, I guess, by definition excludes 60 Minutes) believe that Rove, with all the other, more sophisticated campaign tools at his disposal, would do such a thing? And why would Rove ever have reason to believe that this woman would even be in a position to photograph Seigelman in flagrante? I mean, this is so ludicrous as to belong in black helicopter, tinfoil hat territory. PLEASE continue to watch this space, because I am putting together a major report here refuting the 60 Minutes slime job, with lots of excellent sourcing. But I wanted to get this posted now, as it is getting late on a Friday afternoon.
NM on that
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 3:12PM
Former AmSpec cartoonist Jake Tapper (really, he cartooned for us) is on the trail and speaks to Obama's source about this stuff here. See, dealing with the Clintons all this time drew out our undue skepticism.
Like A Candle in the Wind -- or Something
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 2:09PM
Shawn, that Lindsey Lohan spread is the kind of thing that keeps Amy Winehouse famous. Marilyn Monroe's estate should sue. Geesh, goodbye Norma Jean.
Blowback?
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 2:02PM
On the main site today, I have a column looking at the possibility that Ron Paul may have presidential campaigned himself out of his House seat. Over at Reason, Dave Weigel argues that the Republicans are begging for a third-party challenge if they deny Paul renomination.
Re: Is Obama Telling Tall Tales?
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 2:01PM
Oh, and by the way, money quotes:
But Stuart! You don't understand. Obama transcends the norms of American military strategy!
They also have never run out of hope.
Stuart is being so earnest I feel like I have to snark for him. It's simple. The Democratic candidates believe that the military has only accomplished great things when it is so armed to the teeth that no soldier can stand under the weight of his own gear.
I do find it weird though. This is the party that feels that our troops are scaring Iraqi families in the middle of the night (as John Kerry, I believe, once put it). Maybe they think that if they're going to do it, they should do it with more firepower?
Re: Is Obama Telling Tall Tales?
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 1:45PM
Interestingly, El Rushbo brought this up early in his show today, too. Is this Obama's Baghdad Diarist? We shall see! (Here I'm positioning myself for whatever retrospective gets written by <I>The New Republic</I> about how conservatives will do anything to pillory Obama.)
Actually, come to think of it, does anyone think it's not journalistically worthwhile to look into it? Just askin'.
Is Obama Telling Tall Tales?
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 1:31PM
Some legitimate questions are being raised regarding Barack Obama's story in last night's debate about a rifle platoon that was sent to Afghanistan without enough men or ammo because of Iraq and Bush's general mismanagement.
Re: Change You Can Xerox
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 1:31PM
But now that the Clintons' enemies include a bunch of idealistic pro-Obama liberals and a promising if platitudinous Democratic rising star, the disconnect is obvious.
You have to be at least a little tickled
by the fact that Hillary's campaign thought it was wise to appeal
to the base by trashing idealism. Did she forget what party she was
in?!
Journalistic Magic
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 1:16PM
The campaign blog of the Columbia Journalism Review (full disclosure: the mag is tied to my alma mater) offers a ridiculous semi-defense of the NY Times story on McCain:
"It's F--ing Comical"
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 1:12PM
From New York Magazine, a good piece on the mechanics of how, to use the parlance of our times, the fairy tale of Obama the Uniter has been perpetuated by the same forces that will soon turn their attention to puffing him up against John McCain.
Coming in the same edition as pictures of nude Lindsey Lohan, however--sorry, I mean the Spring Fashion issue--who knows how many will actually read it.
Re: Change You Can Xerox
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 12:41PM
The left's problem with Hillary-as-frontrunner was/is, if anything, she is not willing enough to destroy her enemies; that she talks about accommodation too frequently; that she started playing to the center in the middle of a Democratic primary without regard for the liberal base.
I'd quibble with this only slightly, Shawn. The problem liberals have always had with the Clintons is that their politics has always been about advancing themselves personally and advancing liberalism only secondarily at best. The Clintons have been plenty willing to destroy their enemies but not necessarily the left's enemies. And when accomodation and triangulation are the best strategies for Clintonian self-preservation, they are all too willing to sacrifice the left.
Most liberals were willing to go along with this in the 1990s when the Clintons' enemies were the left's enemies as well -- Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh, The American Spectator, to name a few. But now that the Clintons' enemies include a bunch of idealistic pro-Obama liberals and a promising if platitudinous Democratic rising star, the disconnect is obvious. Liberals are objecting to the Clintons' tactics because they and not the vast right-wing conspiracy are the targets. It is very revealing about everyone involved.
Re: "Change You Can Xerox"
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 12:38PM
Shawn--whatever you or I may think of Obama--it's pretty clear
that he is winning right now because of the fact that he is uniting
the party around his message for change, but that she is failing
because she mounted a campaign based on destroying her opponents.
Ever since her first sign of trouble at the driver's licenses for
illegal immigrants debate in late October, she went into panic mode
and reverted to a 1992 war room mentality. Either directly or
through surrogates she set out to destroy Obama--whether on drug
use, suggesting he was a Muslim, citing his kindergarten essay,
bringing up
Tony Rezko, playing the race card, or the more recent plagiarism
charges. Everything backfired, and just reminded Democratic voters
why they found Obama's call for a "new kind of politics"
appealing.
As for the DailyKos crowd, I'd have a few points to make. Just as John McCain's victory on the Republican side demonstrates that talk radio doesn't represent the entire Republican primary electorate at large, the angry left doesn't account for all Democrats. So, while that vocal segment of the party may be itching for a fight, it doesn't mean that Democratic primary voters haven't been drawn in by Obama's call for unity. Also, I think the failure of John Edwards's campaign demonstrates that the angry left may not represent as large a portion of the actual Democratic electorate as one would think. Edwards took all of the far left's positions, and combined it with a promise to fight Republicans, corporate executives, and lobbyists with the zeal of a child fighting bullies in rough mill towns. And he lost.
So, while Obama's rhetoric may have initially made the angry left worry that he was a sissy, I think he eventually won them over because they realized that he was both more liberal and more likable and thus more likely to win and successfully implement a liberal agenda than Clinton. But I do think his call for unity--however empty it may sound to our more skeptical ears--did win him votes among Democrats overall. And I don't think it's "buy(ing) into his transparently messianic rhetoric" to try to explain why his rhetoric has been so effective.Â
Re: Change You Can Xerox
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 11:26AM
And it was all because of the very attitude that she is displaying in her race against Obama--that the way to win is to destroy all of your opponents. Whether or not his speeches are empty platitudes, Obama understands that to get anything accomplished, you need to convince people to agree with you. That's why he's beating her.
From my perspective the above may or may not be Obama's understanding, but the left's problems with Hillary have never been about, Oh, gee, I really wish Hillary would engage the right in a battle of ideas and unify the country. Never. The left’s problem with Hillary-as-frontrunner was/is, if anything, she is not willing enough to destroy her enemies; that she talks about accommodation too frequently; that she started playing to the center in the middle of a Democratic primary without regard for the liberal base. The sudden, unexpected need to prove her battle credentials mid-campaign is precisely what the whole and I have the scars to show for it! drivel was born of. Lest we forget, Hillary's reception at YearlyKos made McCain's trip to CPAC look like a Summer of 69 flower power orgy. (Well, maybe not exactly like an orgy.) And during the contentious Q&A session following her break-out session I can assure you no one was angry over her orneriness with right-wingers. It was her chumminess with the various boogeymen of the left.
Hillary is losing because Ready On Day One is a crap slogan, her campaign staff
has approached new realities as if they were wading in an ocean of molasses and
her sense of entitlement drove Democrats and left-leaning independents to a
political underdog who A) appealed to their (unwarranted) sense of cultural
superiority and B) is difficult to aggressively argue with not only because he describes everything nonsensically as he of hope versus adversaries of despair,
but also because he has a virtual army of surrogates willing to cry racism any
time a critic gets close to doing any real damage to him even as he himself
pretends to remain above such lowly concerns. (See virtually all coverage of the twisted,
racialized “fairy tale” comment in
The appeal of Obama to liberals is in no sense whatsoever the triumph of unity or ideas over political battle. It has everything to do with Obama framing the argument exactly how the left has always wanted it framed: We’re good. They’re either confused or bad. That’s all we need to know, don’t bother us with the details. Obama is essentially an armored vehicle for, yes, putting to bed the “same old” divisions and fights—by crushing an opposition cowed by fear of seeming mean or politically incorrect. I rarely find myself quoting Mother Jones favorably, but I agree completely with Jonathan Stein when he argues:
I am profoundly troubled that any candidate would chart the course of American history as follows (and I'm rearranging Obama's history here to make it more chronological): American Revolutionaries -> Manifest Destiny -> Slaves/Abolitionists -> Suffragettes -> the Labor Movement -> the Greatest Generation -> the Civil Rights Movement -> Himself.
Why Telecoms Need Immunity
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 11:18AM
At the Examiner today, I explain the nefarious nexus of interests that threatens the telecom companies if they are not given immunity in the foreign surveillance intelligence bill. The companies deserve our thanks, not vicious lawsuits.
Hillary in trouble!
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 11:17AM
Last night, I noted that I felt that Hillary Clinton got stomped -- John Tabin disagreed. But look -- every strength she had either became a weakness, or was outshined by Obama.
Wonkery: Look at the healthcare flap. Her vague attacks on Obama's plan, that his would leave 15 million people behind, were easily dismissed thanks to Obama's willingness to get into why people do not have healthcare. His spec knowledge (a little parliamentary debate lingo for you) threw her off her game so she couldn't find a decent response.
Ability to Debate: Sure, Clinton on the attack seemed to make Obama seem nervous. But towards the end of the round, it was clear she was desperate as in this quote Phil mentions. She became inchoate. Just because she maintained her composure while speaking in total nonsensical terms doesn't mean she kept it on an even keel. It just means that she's beating Mike Gravel. And every shot she took was so premeditated that she had no follow-up... he would take the hit, remain standing, and she'd be shocked.
Connecting with the audience: I don't know if Clinton was ever able to play off her audience, but Obama sure did. In an audience that was supposed to be non-partisan, Obama was able to get the crowd on his side -- particularly when he self-deprecatingly addressed the "Cult of Obama" issue. Clinton, on the other hand, sounded vicious with her "change you can Xerox" line, and made a pretty cynical emotional appeal with her "People ask me how I do it" line. That wasn't just ineffective, it was almost insulting to those interested in the primary enough to know that this was the question asked in New Hampshire.
ALSO: Did anyone notice the end? Obama got up first, held Clinton's chair as she got up, then went to shake the hands of the moderators, waiting patiently for one of them to finish her closer? Hillary walked over to her daughter. I'm assuming that the hope here was that following her "emotional moment," the press would capture her embrace with her child. Instead, the camera followed Obama gallantly smiling and shaking hands.
Sen. Obama, You're No Barry Goldwater
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 10:37AM
American Spectator publisher Al Regnery has a piece in today's NY Post arguing that unlike Barry Goldwater in 1964, Obama is not launching a true, enduring, political movement.
He writes:
Unlike the personality-driven Obama effort, which emphasizes vague democratic ideals and "change," the Goldwater bid centered on principles. His platform was based on ideas - limited government, economic and political freedom, federalism; fiscal responsibility, traditional values.
Also, you can find out more about Al Regnery's new book, Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism, and purchase copies, here.
Ver Bru Gun
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 10:30AM
In today's Reader Mail, many correspondents take aim at Robert VerBruggen's suggestion for how pro-Second Amendment supporters might compromise with Democratic gun grabbers, if they must. He said that they can pry those guns from our cold dead fingers, but maybe they can regulate extended clips. I'd weight in on this but I've been too busy watching this video to think about it much.
Barack Obama saved his dessert for you
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 10:23AM
More on the Cult of Obama, aka MC B, the new Barackstar. heh.
On Mandates
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 10:21AM
Even though I shudder at the thought of either of their health care proposals becoming law, I find Hillary Clinton's contention that Barack Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uninsured while hers covers everybody, rather absurd. Her assertion that she covers everybody is based on conflating a universal mandate with universal coverage. But they are not the same thing. Just as some people choose to go without car insurance despite the law, people will choose not to purchase health care even though there is a mandate. We are seeing this in Massachusetts, where there already is a mandate.
Corningware Sets the Table for Hillary
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 10:20AM
Tim Carney has the goods on a big business "special interest" that is cozy with combative Hillary.
Victimhood Politics: Extreme Edition
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 9:59AM
Former
By convicting on all three charges, jurors made clear that
they believe Dodds was not in the woods for 27 hours following the crash as he
claimed, but rather somewhere much warmer soaking his feet in cold water to
fake his injuries. Prosecutors said throughout the trial the entire ordeal was
supposed to be used to whip up support for his nascent congressional campaign,
but the ruse turned went awry.
“Awry” is one way to put it, I suppose.
Thanks to Granite Slate for the heads up.
"Change You Can Xerox"
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 9:58AM
I caught the replay of the debate late last night, and that attack line clearly bombed with the audience, and was probably why Hillary Clinton felt the need to be gracious to Barack Obama in her closing remarks. But what struck me more about the rest of her answer to the exchange over Obama's "plagiarism" was that whatever you may say about Obama, the case he makes for his candidacy is coherent, while Clinton is utterly incoherent.
Obama argues that everybody has policy proposals, but that if you don't inspire the American people to get behind a given cause, nothing can happen. He can point to the movement he has created as evidence of his ability to inspire people, to get them to rally around the idea of change.
Clinton said:
Then she cited a familiar example:
Unsung To Sung
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 8:23AM
Michelle Oddis tells the story of a fallen Marine who finally got the recognition he deserves.
The Times takes your emails!
Posted by on 2.22.08 @ 7:56AM
How gracious! The Times is soliciting comments from readers in an "Ask The Newsroom" segment. Get to it!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Clinton Spin
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 11:28PM
From Howard Wolfson:
Hillary's 'Moment'
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 11:25PM
I missed the debate, but caught Hillary's closing on YouTube (via David Brody). Everything that comes out of her mouth always seems phony and calculating to me, but Democratic voters may feel differently, just as they did when she broke down in tears in New Hampshire. Here statement that "no matter what happens in the contest" could either be interpreted as a way of minimizing the impression that she will stop at nothing to become president, or as an acknowledgement that her goose is cooked. For those who missed it, video below:
Re: CNN Radio
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:57PM
Actually, it may just be me, John, but what's wrong with a little show of prickliness? In any case, the CNN Radio yappers are now saying the Xerox line was loudly booed by audience, presumably in Obama's favor. Meanwhile, I thought Hillary's closing her most effective line of the night, when she tried to suggest a badly crippled or defaced soldier is going through a lot worse ordeal than any she has or ever will face (and it didn't help her cause to have to remind viewers that the worst thing she's suffered has been a lifetime of humiliation as Bill Clinton's wife). It struck me listening to her words that she was actually resigning herself to defeat in this race.
Wrap-Up
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:52PM
I don't agree that Hillary got "stomped" -- I'd score the debate a draw on points. But Obama didn't get stomped, either, and that's a big problem for HRC. She needed a big moment tonight, and she didn't get it.
Man of the people.
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:44PM
Obama notes that the American people are tired of a government being dominated by the powerful, the well-connected. Right, right, Harvard boy.
Re: CNN Radio
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:41PM
This is a great example of how the medium shapes the message, Wlady. You couldn't see Obama's expression when Hillary used the "change you can Xerox" line, so you missed his flash of prickliness.
(Since the Obama Cult is billing their man as the next JFK, it's a little ironic that he's doing better on the radio. Kennedy won the Nixon-Kennedy debate among TV viewers but lost among radio listeners.)
On Earmarks
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:38PM
Barack Obama says, yes, he's responsible for them, and that he'd be happy to disclose which earmarks they are. He even goes on to say, "Look, I believe in these projects."
Hillary really is getting stomped.
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:36PM
I think that all the control and discipline she has been cultivating is what's preventing her from ripping Obama's head off. Every supposed weak point Hillary thought Obama was to have, has turned out not to be a weak point, but a chance for Obama to rip her.
Obama Loves Texas
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:33PM
Asked about the surge, Obama gives a shout-out to the First Calvary out of Fort Hood and then somehow moves on to the importance of Latin American policy. Can this guy pander or what?
CNN Radio
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:21PM
I've been listening to the debate on radio and not watching, so I can safely say words speak louder than actions. And so far my impression is that Obama has been cool and collected, playing the game at his tempo; increasingly, Hillary is coming across as shrill and desperate, jumping from an attack on his "plagiarism" to an attack on his health-care plan. Then in response to the gentlemanly Hispanic questioner she ignores his question (rudeness) to reply to something that was being discussed before the last break.
Hillary Starts to Fight (Too Late?)
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:08PM
She invokes this exchange; it's the first punch she's thrown, and Obama starts to get defensive. The questions move on to the "plagiarism" charge, and Hillary has a canned line prepared about "change you can Xerox," which clearly upsets Obama. If she'd been doing this the whole debate she might have pushed him into a gaffe, but the clock is ticking.
When Playing It Safe Is Dangerous
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 8:44PM
I may be speaking too soon, but we're nearly a third of the way into this debate and Hillary has done precious little to tear down Obama. She seems more interested in bashing Bush than the man next to her. Sounds like Mandy Grunwald may have won the internal debate. We'll see how the next hour goes.Hillary's in a lot of trouble at this stage of the game. Just coasting along at this point seems pretty dumb.
Dems vs. For'ners
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 8:35PM
To hear Obama and Hillary tell it, non-Americans are positively dangerous: They're either taking jobs or selling us poisonous products. Hillary calls for "a trade time-out" and "a trade prosecutor."
Obama Endorses a Wild-Guess-Based Economic Policy?
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 8:30PM
"You don't need an economist or the federal reserve to tell people the economy is in trouble" -- well if you want to actually know the facts about the conditions of the economy, you sort of do, don't you?
Democrats Debating
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 8:25PM
A contrast: Hillary's opening statement was basically a waste of time -- she name-checked female Texas Democrats Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards, then droned on about something or other. Obama at least tried to use his opening statement to move the ball forward by playing for John Edwards's up-for-grabs base with some Edwards-style populist anecdotes, and then bashing Washington (i.e. subtextually bashing Hillary-the-insider).
I'll be on Cavuto at 4:00.
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 2:31PM
Tune in to Fox News to hear me talk about the Times story.
TNR piece on McCain's NYT appearance is up
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 2:22PM
... Just go here. The short end of it: Bill Keller was (rightly) disturbed by the story. Other editors were too. The Washignton reporters were pulling hard for the story to go up as they had it, and after two months of playing with it, the editors finally felt it was okay.
But really? They felt this was better than how it was? What was fixed?
Huge Labor Group Endorses Obama
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 2:17PM
Change to Win, a liberal coalition of seven major unions with six million members, has endorsed Barack Obama. Several of the unions, such as the Teamsters, had already endorsed him, but nonetheless this formalizes the fact that Obama is the clear choice of big labor. It complicates the efforts of Hillary Clinton to mount a comeback by arguing that she is the choice of working-class Democrats. Obama now has the consolidated the support of blacks, young voters, upper-income whites, and unions--and keeps making progress among women--that's a good place to be in in a Democratic nomination contest.
The Clinton Strategy
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 10:29AM
The prevailing view now is that Hillary Clinton needs not only to win but to win big in Texas and Ohio to cut into Obama's delegate lead, or else she's in big trouble. But what became apparent in listening in on their conference calls this week is that the Clinton campaign will take any sort of wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4 and use it as a ticket to Pennsylvania on April 22, and ultimately fight this out until June in Puerto Rico. The Clintons hope to chip away enough at his lead between now and early June, so that the delegate race is close enough so they could make a pitch to superdelegates that Hillary should be the nominee because she won the biggest states--NY, NJ, CA, MA, OH, TX, PA, FL, MI.
This strategy may very well be a long shot, but there's something else to consider that is no doubt playing into the Clintons' thinking. June is more than three months away, and absolutely anything can happen between now and then. Remember, just three months ago, back in November, Hillary was still seen by most as the inevitable nominee. Obama is on the top of his game now, but perhaps over the course of three months he could make a big gaffe, some negative news story could break on him, people could tire of his rhetoric, an international incident could occur that puts a premium on experience, etc. We don't know, but clearly, the longer Clinton can hang in there, the higher the odds that something could happen.
That's why, in my view, even though Obama could technically afford to lose Ohio and Texas as long as the states are close enough, I really think it's important for him to win one of those states, which would essentially finish her off. He can't take any chances.
You don't get more George Will than this...
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 10:04AM
Re: NYT's bad ethics
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:57AM
As I mention in my article, it's an interesting approach to such a piece, to say the least. Using the quotes of former campaign staffers as a lens, the Times then goes on to get sexy. But it pivots at the moment it's about to get sexy -- such as the affair insinuation. It never says there was an affair, just that staffers were convinced there was one.
Obviously that doesn't make it any better. But it shows how this piece gets precariously close to the line and trips over it.
And, Quin, can I order a nothingburger, with an order of smear fries?
A Boost For McCain
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:35AM
I've always thought that one of the key things John McCain needed to do to win over conservatives was to pick a fight with the media. For years, McCain's cozy relationship with the press was one of the main reason so many conservatives were suspicious of him. It seems like McCain may have his opening now. The thinly-sourced NY Times piece on McCain has been universally blasted by conservatives as an unfair hit job, and the timing of the story--right after he all but sewed up the nomination--will raise even more questions. If he plays this right, McCain will be in a position where it's him and conservatives vs. the New York Times. That's a good place to be in if you want to ingratiate yourself to conservatives.
It seems that the McCain camp has noticed. McCain advisor Mark McKinnon told CBN's David Brody: "The story is a total smear. It's speculation and rumor based on unnamed sources with an axe to grind. The New York Times has lowered its standards to the level of the National Enquirer. And voters will see it for what it is, including evangelicals. All they need to hear is three words: New York Times."
If what is insinuated in this story gets corroborated by other news outlets with better sourcing, that's a different story. But all we have to go on right now is the NYT piece, and it's pretty thin gruel. So, for now, score one for McCain.
NYT's Bad Ethics
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 9:25AM
I call BS on the NYT story on McCain and the lobbyist.
I have in the past warned that the NYT would be running this story -- which was widely known to be under investigation -- and that the timing of it would be bad for McCain. What I could not imagine was that it would be such a weakly sourced story, with such incredibly weak "charges" involved. Even if the sources had been good, which they aren't, this would have been a big nothingburger of a story. The supposed "favoritism" involved was hardly enough even to raise an eyebrow in other circumstances. And the reports on the nature of the supposed relationship were so vague as to be almost meaningless. On top of that, it's all eight years old -- nothing new here. But, and here is the point, the sourcing on this story is WAY too weak to hang such a potentially explosive story on.
Readers here will know that I have been a strong critic of McCain. I remain a critic. But this story is trash. Even if the underlying story IS true, about which it is impossible to know, the NYT did not report enough, or with good enough sources, for anybody to have any real idea whether it is true. In short, this story ought not to have been run -- not unless it had more facts and better sourcing. It is a disservice to both McCain and to the country for the Times to print this nothingburger of a story. I call foul on the Times -- and so should every fair-minded American.
As a Jeremytarian Insomniac Editor, I...
Posted by on 2.21.08 @ 2:35AM
A letter in today's Reader Mail has one of the best openings of all time: "As a Libertarian Driving Instructor, I..."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Re: McCain
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 11:25PM
I agree that if this is all there is, I don't see this story being a huge long-term problem for McCain. From the very opening, the story is written passively, "Early in Senator John McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers." And that's pretty much how the piece is framed--through the perspective of staffers who were concerned about the appearance of impropriety, because the NYT doesn't seem to have the goods on anything actually done wrong. Also, there's the extraneous background about the Keating 5 scandal. This would be a big story if 1) It were clear McCain had an affair 2) He used his influence as a Senator to help his mistress's clients and 3) The clients had something tangible to show for his efforts (a government contract, a favorable regulatory ruling, etc.). If at least two of those things were substantiated it would do great damage to McCain's image as a man of integrity, and the sex angle would give the story legs. But all we have to go on right now is the NYT piece, which has a lot of smoke but no fire. So, we'll have to see in the next days and weeks whether more details will emerge to corroborate the carefully-made insinuations in this article. Otherwise, the real controversy will be over why the NYT delayed publication of this story--evidently initially planned for December--until right after McCain essentially clinched the nomination.
More on Michelle (no pun intended)
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 10:09PM
Michelle Obama clarifies:
McCain Affair Story
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 9:32PM
Trouble ahead for John McCain on issues of integrity: He may have had an affair with a lobbyist and done political favors for her. So reports the Times of London and even more extensively in the New York Times, courtesy of Drudge. That last part, re: political favors, is really the worst part -- even if untrue, it'll hurt McCain a great deal to be hit on the very thing that makes him so prominent for independents.
Teamsters For Obama
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 3:53PM
Another big endorsement from big labor.
UPDATE:
A reporter who is on the union's media conference call emails in that James P. Hoffa, the group's president, said, "We see the trend and are very impressed with the momentum of the Obama campaign."
When asked if there were any real differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Hoffa said, "I hold Clinton in the highest regard and her husband. This is not about them. It's about who can restore the American dream." But he did say that Obama is better on NAFTA.
Hillary Meets The Fonz
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 3:37PM
If I had the time or tech savvy, I'd do a YouTube mashup of the latest patronizing Hillary Clinton ad "Night Shift" and the Henry Winkler/Michael Keaton 80s film of the same name.
The Most Counter-Intuitive Defense Ever
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 3:24PM
Is this so crazy it might actually work? I hope not!:
Commenting on the charge of murdering Miss Bowman, Anthony Glass QC, defending, said: "It is, you may think, a very unattractive defence. He did not know she was dead until intercourse was concluded. Even though you may think his conduct is disgusting, he allowed his lust to get the better of him."
Lunar Eclipse Watch
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 2:54PM
Tonight there will be a total lunar eclipse, which NASA predicts will give the moon a "vivid red or orange color." The event can only occur when there is a full moon and when part of the Earth's shadow hits it, and there won't be another one until 2010, so it's probably worth checking out. Also, unlike a solar eclipse, it's perfectly safe for viewing
This NASA website has a helpful diagram, and a chart with all of the relevant times. For those on the east coast, the partial eclipse begins at 8:43 pm, the total eclipse lasts from 10:01-10:51, and the show is over at 12:09 am.
Cosmos 954
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 2:30PM
The attempt to "shoot down" (actually to impact and shatter) a deorbiting U.S. satellite is reminiscent of the return of a Soviet Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite, Cosmos 954, in 1978.
The Cosmos had retained its reactor core, presenting a clear and present danger as it hurtled toward the atmosphere. On January 24 it re-entered on a southwest-northeast track that displayed a fiery trail from Hawaii to the western hemisphere.
It was nighttime in the Northwest Territories of Canada when it came in, visible from Yellowknife, Snowdrift, and beyond. Yellowknife resident Marie Ruman recalled, "I could see dozens of parts...each had a long bright tail..."
Pretty, but potentially deadly. The returning missive spread a 370-mile-long path of radioactivity from Great Slave Lake on up to the Thelon Wilderness.
Six campers adventuring near the Arctic Circle came across some of the remnants not knowing what they were but subsequently got clean bills of health from radiation health experts.
The joint U.S.-Canadian effort to find the cosmos pieces was named Operation Morning Light.
A few pieces were eventually found. For the effort the Canadian government billed the Soviet Union for $6,041,174.70 plus additional compensation for unpredictable expense. The Soviets eventually paid $3 million.
A few people will be reminded of Cosmos 954 when the U.S. Navy tries to intercept the current wayward orbiter.
Oh Unhappy Day
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:53PM
The magazine of everything alt.country (whatever that is) named after my hometown heroes Uncle Tupelo will cease publication as of May. The wherefore and why is "not simply the well-documented and industrywide reduction in print advertising, but the precipitous fall of the music industry." Rats. More here.
Funny Question
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:39PM
How did Barack Obama become the Democratic frontrunner by winning a bunch of states that don't matter?
Gosh Darn It, People Like Him
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:22PM
A new poll puts Democratic comedian Al Franken slightly ahead of Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The results are within the margin of error.
McCain Has Won; Someone Tell Mike Huckabee
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:20PM
By RCP's count, John McCain's got 960 delegates. Mitt Romney, who has of course endorsed McCain, has 273; if 85% or more of Romney's delegates heed their guy's endorsement, that puts McCain over the 1191 delegate mark.
Huckabee said at CPAC that he wouldn't drop out until McCain reached 1191. He can bow out now without breaking his word, should he be so inclined.
Sacrifices To Ra
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:17PM
Karol believes time is Obama's worst enemy in the showdown with John McCain. I hope she's right, but just in case I've formulated my own Plan B.
Conservatives and Obama
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:09PM
If Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, conservatives should resist two temptations already on display in our responses to his candidacy. The first is the temptation to believe that just because Obama is not as corrupt and personally offensive as the Clintons, his impact on our politics would be benign. If he won the general election, his impact would be anything but. Obama is to the left of the Clintons and has the potential to popularize a resurgent liberalism that Hillary is more likely to discredit.
The second temptation is to assume that once people discover Obama is really an inexperienced liberal, the scales will fall from the electorate's eyes and John McCain will march to victory. Obama is certainly beatable, but this hope is wildly implausible. Phil has already mentioned the recent elections in which voters have preferred change to experience. Attacks highlighting Obama's liberalism, if done wrong, can play into Obama's hands by making the attacker seem overly partisan. Liberalism itself is more popular than it was in 1988 or even 2004. And McCain is an imperfect vehicle for liberal-baiting, to put it mildly.
Conservatives are going to have to do better than either joining in on the Obama swooning or deciding that Obama's appeal is imaginary.
MORE: No, I don't think this is going to do it either.
Clinton Advisor: See You In San Juan
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:04PM
Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton advisor, just said on a conference call that the Democratic nomination battle wouldn't be decided before June 7, when Puerto Rico goes to the polls. Ickes said Clinton trails by around 75 delegates, which he categorized as "not a huge number." He said she will "close the gap" by June and "take the nomination by Puerto Rico or shortly thereafter" by convincing superdelegates to get behind her candidacy. This seemed to be a subtle shift from her Texas and Ohio strategy into a longer-term effort to chip away at Obama's lead. Ickes repeatedly emphasized "at the end of the whole process."
Meanwhile, Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, made the rather odd argument that she's the only one who can beat John McCain because she "has faced tough Republican opponents before." Huh?
I can think of several ways to describe Rick Lazio and John Spencer, but "tough opponents" wouldn't be among them.
UPDATE: Asked to clarify, Penn said that Clinton faced a tough challenge from Rudy Giuliani before he was forced to drop out, and that--get this--Lazio "came on like gangbusters as a fresh new face." The reason she faced less opposition in her reelection race was that she was "so successful as Senator."
The Dirt On Obama
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 10:31AM
Is there any? When he first announced his candidacy, the smart money was on the fact that once the Clinton machine got through with him, exposing every skeleton hiding in his closet, he'd emerge as sullied as any other politician. Tony Blankley declared in late 2006:
Buckle This
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 10:27AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Eric Peters has a wonderfully mischievous column about how, for only $49.95, you can buy a get-out-of-that-seatbelt-ticket-free pass. Don't want to buckle up for safety? Call Dr. Bob.
"The Metaphor Is A Mirage"
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 10:21AM
This morning Robert J. Samuelson cops to a bit of Obama buyer's remorse in the WaPo--("By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails")--but those words are chocolates and flowers compared to Machinists Union President Tom Buffenbarger's introduction of Hillary yesterday:
"He's not just a trained thespian, he's a terrific shadow boxer. You know the type. Outside the ring, he pretends he can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. But Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois state Senate. He took a walk more than 130 times. That's what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves, all the right combinations, all the right footwork, but he never steps into the ring. He walks away from the fight."
For the record, I'd just like to point out this razor fight is
between elements of the Democratic Party, the same party that sends
emissaries onto cable news programs almost hourly to decry the
cruel "Republican noise machine," always on the attack because it
is devoid of ideas. Is this what enrolling in the David Brock
School of Etiquette gets you?
The Experience Thing
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 9:58AM
Should Barack Obama fight off the Clinton machine and capture the Democratic nomination, Republicans would be silly to view him as a political novice. And it must be said that Clinton's strategy has been largely based on portraying him as a naive newcomer, all rhetoric, who isn't ready to be president or commander in chief. So, in one sense, a strategy that Republicans will be counting on to take down Obama in the general election has been tried and it failed. However, just because the experience vs. novice contrast hasn't been working for Clinton, it doesn't mean that it will definitely fail for McCain. The reason is that, from the very start, it was laughable for Clinton to claim that she was ready to lead from day one. As has been pointed out, her so-called 35 years of experience was largely a myth. If you're going to count the short time she spent at the Children's Defense Fund as relevant experience, then Obama's time as a civil rights attorney and community organizer gets to count, too. Being a bystander to her husband as first lady of Arkansas and America is really on odd thing to claim as experience, and clearly a lot of voters aren't buying it. So, when you eliminate all of that, you're left with the fact that she has a few more years in the U.S. Senate than he does--and if you include his time in the Illinois state senate you can even make the argument that Obama has more overall legislative experience than Clinton. So, while Obama's victory over Clinton was impressive, it wasn't a true test of whether he can win a change vs. experience general election. With McCain, there is actually a true contrast. Here's a man with decades of experience in the Senate, who has been deeply involved in national security matters, with a military background, who can much more credibly argue that he's ready to lead by day one. That's not to say that given the choice between change and experience, the electorate wouldn't choose change (see 1960, 1976, 1992, 2000), but clearly the primaries haven't been a true test of whether Obama will win such an argument.
For the First Time in My Adult Life
Posted by on 2.20.08 @ 12:57AM
I'm really proud I'm not a registered Democrat.
Just kidding. I've always been proud not to be a registered Democrat. Though lately I've been less proud of being a registered Republican.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Unintended Consequences of Hope-Mongering
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:29PM
Listening to the Wisconsin victory speech, I'm suddenly buying a little bit of what Barack has been selling: No, not the fierce urgency of now. It's more ambiguous than that, more along the lines of, God, I hope this self-righteous blowhard isn't elected president!
Never Ending Obama
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:25PM
Tonight it's like he took all the speeches he's given in the past year and pasted them together to create one long, rambling, address.
Obama Wins Among Whites In WI, Closes In On Women
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:08PM
The Wisconsin exit polls are bad news for Clinton if this is a sign of things to come, as Obama continued to make progress among several key demographic groups. Clinton's strategy in Ohio and Texas is based on winning working class white voters and women, but Obama won whites 52-46, those without a college degree 54-45, and those with an income of less than $50,000 by 53-46. Among women, Clinton's edge was just 51-48. He also won among every age group other than those over 60. As far as I can tell, Clinton's base has now narrowed to elderly white women.
Re: It's Over
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:07PM
Team Hillary didn't really throw everything they had into Wisconsin, for whatever reason. The Clinton camp has acknowledged that Texas and Ohio are must-win; it's hard to see how they turn around Obama's momentum in the next two weeks. And if Obama keeps winning, I'd be shocked to see the superdelegates save Hillary's skin.
It's Over
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 9:34PM
Wow. If the Wall Street Journal is already calling Wisconsin for Obama, as of 9:24 p.m., according to the e-mail bulletin I received, it confirms Hillary's continuing free-fall.
The More Things Change
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 7:40PM
A revealing line in an article on the transfer of power between the Castro brothers: "The younger Castro raised expectations of openings in the state-controlled economy with his reported fascination with Chinese-style capitalism, calls for unspecified 'structural changes,' and acknowledgment that government wages averaging $19 a month do not satisfy basic needs. He also encouraged Cubans to open a fearless and critical debate, as long as they remember that the final decisions will be made by the island's Communist leaders." (Emphasis mine.)
The McCain Economic Team That Wasn't
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 6:49PM
Andrew Ferguson has a clever piece in the Weekly Standard pointing out that John McCain's favorite economic advisers aren't likely to give similar economic advice. The starkest contrast is between Jack Kemp, the ebullient supply-sider who warns Republicans against "root canal politics," and Peter Peterson, the Concord Coalition guru who is root canal politics. McCain needs the assistance of such men, since by his own admission he doesn't know much about economics.
Ferguson reports that both men think their pupil agrees with them:
"He understands that the solution to our long-term problems will involve some shared sacrifice," Pete Peterson says. "And I think his leadership skills will be very effective in putting this idea of shared sacrifice across.""I tell him: 'Stop mentioning Pete Peterson!'" Kemp says. "And he gets that."
As I've said before, there could be a meeting of the minds, with McCain heeding Kemp on tax rates and Peterson on spending (perhaps Phil Gramm could faciliate this). But what's on McCain's mind here is a bit harder to fathom.
Re: Deval Patrick: Words vs. Deeds
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 4:38PM
JP, I really wish you would stop borrowing Jim Morrison's hate speech.
Re: Deval Patrick: Words vs. Deeds
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 4:21PM
"...but hasn't lit the commonwealth on fire with his governing prowess now that he is in office."
However, the rest of the states would be more than happy if he went ahead and really did light the commonwealth on fire.
Deval Patrick: Words vs. Deeds
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 4:15PM
A Democratic consultant quoted in this Politico story suggests that Hillary Clinton actually go after Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the man whose words Barack Obama has borrowed. Patrick, an Obama supporter, did well on the stump but hasn't lit the commonwealth on fire with his governing prowess now that he is in office. One wonders if this fact hurt Obama in the Massachusetts primary.
It would be interesting if Hillary were able to take advantage of Patrick's shortcomings. That's probably more than the Massachusetts Republican Party will ever be able to do.
Landslide Dubya
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 3:51PM
I don't completely agree with the Jonathan Rauch column he is trying to debunk, but Peter Wehner overstates his case in arguing that 2004 wasn't basically a base election. Wehner recites some of the familiar factoids: "President Bush increased his vote total from 2000 to 2004 by almost a quarter (23 percent)... President Bush not only mobilized his base, he increased his popularity among Hispanics, African Americans, Catholics, and Jews, to list just a few of the non-traditional Republican groups whom Bush appealed to in his reelection campaign. Bush also became the first president since 1988 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote and received the most votes by any presidential candidate in history."
Let's look at those non-base numbers first. Bush improved his share of the African American vote from 9 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2004, a pretty modest increase. He also saw his percentage of the Jewish vote rise from 19 percent to about 24 percent, again not exactly earth shattering. Among Hispanics, Bush probably got closer to 40 percent than the 44 percent in widely trumpeted early 2004 exit polls, about five points better than 2000. Bush lost every group he, according to Wehner, "increased his popularity among," except for Catholics.
Now let's take a look at Bush's swelling vote totals overall from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the two candidates of the left -- Gore and Nader -- together won about 51 percent of the vote. It was therefore impressive for Bush to cobble together a majority in a two-man race four years later, especially with such high turnout from Democratic voting blocs. But there was high turnout from Republican voting blocs as well, including evangelicals. Both parties turned out their base. That's why "Bush received the most votes by any presidential candidate in history," and it's also why John Kerry received the second most votes of any presidential candidate in history.
In the end, Bush was reelected with just 51 percent of the vote. That is roughly three points better than his 2000 showing, despite 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and all the benefits of incumbency. He flipped exactly two states, Iowa and New Mexico, while losing New Hampshire.
All that is to say, despite all the improvements in raw numbers, 2004 looked mostly like 2000. Which is to say, mostly like a base election.
She's A Few Delegates Shy a Full Load
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 3:20PM
Even after an assist from Gov. Ed Rendell, it seems that Hillary Clinton still fell about ten people short of submitting a full list of delegates for Pennsylvania. And this is one of the states the matters, according to Team Clinton.
Battle Of The Wives
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 1:57PM
Cindy McCain responds to Michelle Obama's statement that the United States essentially sucked before her husband ran for president.
Clinton and Obama's Pledged Delegates
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 1:53PM
I see that Drudge has linked to this Roger Simon report that Hillary Clinton's campaign intends to go after Barack Obama's pledged delegates, that he has already won. But in the conference call I listened in on today, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson made what he described as a Sherman statement, declaring in no uncertain terms that the campaign would not pursue Obama's pledged delegates.
Wolfson: Clinton Raised $15 Million In 15 Days
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 12:33PM
Speaking on an ongoing conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said that Hillary Clinton raised $15 million in the first 15 days of February, which he attributed to a "grassroots response" to news that Clinton had made a $5 million personal loan to the campaign.
Fundraising "exploded after news of Senator Clinton's loan got out," Wolfson said, and he expects that the campaign will have the resources they need to compete with Barack Obama.
Wolfson began the call by managing expectations for tonight's contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii, noting that the Obama campaign had predicted "big victories" in the states. Clinton strategist Mark Penn later added that they always saw Wisconsin as "challenging."
The call also featured the campaign's Ohio and Texas state directors, who emphasized Clinton's strength in those states.
More to come.
UPDATE:
Robby Mook, the campaign's Ohio state director, said "she's not just here to make speeches, she's here to engage with everyday folks." The idea is to run a campaign that appeals to middle class voters. Also, the campaign will import farmers from upstate New York to travel to rural Ohio to talk about her record on agriculture.
Texas director Ace Smith described the "incredible enthusiasm" greeting Clinton in the Lone Star State, including a rally for 12,000 in El Paso. Smith said Clinton had 100,000 volunteers and 20 offices statewide, and vowed that she wouldn't concede any votes, not even the youth vote.
Both state directors emphasized Clinton's aggressive efforts in
early and absentee voting. (Boy, this really is starting to sound
like Giuliani, Take II.)
Penn declared that "this race is essentially a tie," because only
40 delegates separated Clinton and Obama. The problem with such
analysis is that it includes superdelegates who can change their
mind, and it doesn't account for the gains Obama is expected to
make tonight with victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii.
The conventional wisdom is that Clinton will have to win Ohio and Texas by huge margins to come close enough to Obama in delegates that she can make a case to superdelegates. But what became clear in this call, is that the campaign will use even a small victory in these states to make the pitch that Clinton won the big states (NY, NJ, CA, OH, TX, FL, MI) and thus deserves to be the nominee. Penn said Clinton "won virtually every big state" and that this would be important heading into Pennsylvania "powerful in terms of superdelegates."
It's Okay to Love A Republican...
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 11:24AM
...so long as they realize Obama is the only rational choice for the presidency.
From Castro To Clinton
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:59AM
On a day when the end of Fidel Castro's rule brings a glimmer of hope to Cuba, I receive a press release from the Clinton campaign promising "Shared Prosperity for Ohio Families."
Musharraf's Defeat
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:54AM
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the complicated political system over in Pakistan, and will be reading intensely over the next days and weeks to try to sort through these election results to get a sense of how the changes will affect our relationship with the country, how much cooperation we can expect to receive in fighting terrorism, and, most importantly, how secure their nuclear weapons are. But it strikes me as good news that the Islamic religious parties were routed in the North West Frontier, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have found safe havens. This would seem to suggest that to whatever extent there is anti-Americanism in Pakistan, it hasn't translated into widespread popular support for radical Islam.
Saved By An Asterisk?
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:23AM
It's tough not to take a bit of guilty pleasure from the opening of WSJ critic Joe Morgenstern's takedown of the new film, Jumper:
"Jumper," based on the novel by Steven Gould, re-defines--downward-- the notion of dreadful. It does so by dispensing with everything a movie needs for a shot at being merely awful. Dramatic development? None. Entertaining dialogue? Ditto. Internal logic? Puhleez. Intriguing characters? No characters, thus no intrigue. Interesting performances? Essentially none, though with an asterisk.
Hey CSPAN Viewers
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:20AM
Here's the piece that J.P. was talking about. Suffice it to say, he doesn't have a crush on Obama.
The Clinton-McCain Tag Team
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:10AM
Back when Hillary Clinton was viewed as the inevitable nominee, she ran a general election campaign, and responded to any questioning of her liberal credentials (especially on Iraq) with a sermon on how she's been fighting the right wing machine for 15 years and it's the evil Republicans that Democrats need to focus on. Her task was made easier because Republicans, especially then-frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, kept launching attacks on her to shore up support within their own party. But now, with Barack Obama viewed as the likelier nominee, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain has started focusing on the young Illinois Senator, and Clinton has been in the odd position of joining McCain in his criticisms. When Obama released his economic plan, a McCain economic adviser went on TV and said it looked like it was plagiarized from Clinton's plan. The Clinton campaign sent out an email highlighting this quote, and Howard Wolfson mentioned it again on a conference call yesterday. When McCain called out Obama for waffling on his pledge to accept public financing in the general election, the Clinton campaign again jumped on the charge, citing it as further evidence that there was a gap between what Obama was promising in his lofty rhetoric, and what he could actually deliver. This development is not a very favorable one to Clinton, as the left is already starting to mobilize against McCain, so now she's in the reverse position she was in the fall. Clinton, bizarrely, is now teaming up with the right wing attack machine against the left. Liberals, for instance, have already decided that McCain was a big phony when it came to public financing, and are in denial that Obama took a public financing pledge. (This even though when Obama was asked in a questionnaire in November, "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" he answered "Yes.") Of course, it's in the best interest of McCain to keep the Democrats bitterly divided as long as possible. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
Justice Replaced By Revenge
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 10:07AM
So a Kucinich for President fundraiser was out, but that didn't mean Sean Penn and Dennis Kucinich weren' t still going to party--and maybe even get out a little pent-up aggression. How else to explain the pair winding up on a stage to introduce far, far underground heavy metal act Ringworm? After all, it isn't every day the would-be architect of the Department of Peace teams up with a bunch of guys who boast in press materials of conjuring a sound "powerful enough to bring metal fans to their knees"; powerful enough, indeed, to "exorcise humanity's filthy demons." (The rhetoric is par for the course, by the by.) Could it be the man who fervently believed Peace is Possible has been so demoralized by his recent loss that he's thrown his Carole King and James Taylor LPs out the window for something to better match his dark mood...say, for instance, Ringworm's The Venomous Grand Design and Justice Replaced by Revenge? Or is this simply the price one pays to keep up with a startlingly young wife?
If it's the latter, what's next? Fred Thompson stage-diving at a Between the Buried and Me show? I think we all recall how well this type of campaigning went for Alan Keyes in 2000...Bush Calls For "Free and Fair" Elections In Cuba
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 9:41AM
"And I mean free and I mean fair," Mr. Bush said, according to the NY Times. "not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as true democracy."
Obama Comedown Syndrome
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 9:27AM
Lord, David Brooks hits it out of the park today:
The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania â€" fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.
But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.
One quibble: I think Ian McEwan's novels are what they would make you read in Hope Detox centers. Any time a character approaches a "Yes we can!" attitude in McEwan's world the worst is usually just around the corner.Turn on the TV
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 8:05AM
J.P.'s on C-SPAN, and has boldly decided not to shave today.
Fidel Says Farewell
Posted by on 2.19.08 @ 3:32AM
Fidel Castro has resigned. Presumably he's handing Cuba over to his brother Raul.
Obviously Fidel is getting his affairs in order in anticipation of his own death. Funeral arrangements come next; I recommend a modest ceremony in which El Jefe's remains are sprinkled on the ash-heap of history.
Monday, February 18, 2008
"Sarah, Are You Okay?"
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 4:35PM
Sometimes, during the course of an average day, you wind up stumbling upon the harrowing as Dawn Summers recently did.
More Television...
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 4:25PM
And consequently, more publicity for AmSpec. I'll be on C-Span's Washington Journal at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow to discuss the presidential race. If I can, I'll attempt to speak entirely in borrowed phrases.
Revolutionary Sellout, Part II
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 4:24PM
Barack Obama is not the first underdog to play on the romantic appeal of public financing only to abandon it in a fit of green-eyed passion once attaining frontrunner status. At least he didn't have the gall to label his hypocrisy "a new Declaration of Independence," though.
Hillary's Husband Plagiarized, Too
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 4:00PM
This whole "controversy" over Obama using some of Deval Patrick's words and phrases without attribution (but with Patrick's consent) is a big kerfuffle created out of cotton candy. Politicians repeat others' words and phrases all the time. The word "plagiariam" refers to use without attribution of whole passages in formal, written works (or, if in speeches, only in formal speeches that pretend to originality).
But here's the rub: Nobody, and I mean nobody, is more adept at stealing good, clever political language than is Hillary's husband, Angry Bill. I know, because he stole several phrases that my then-boss Bob Livingston and I came up with in the early and mid-1990s. Livingston would use a good (I flatter myself they were good), original turn of phrase, and it would show up in some news article or other, but not get major play. Three or four days later, Clinton himself would use it in a major press conference, as if it were his own, while turning its meaning against Republicans.
One example: "lean, but not mean." I guarantee you that if you do a Google search or a Lexis/Nexis search for that phrase, it will never come up before 1995. It seems such an obvious phrase, but it's not. I couldn't find anybody else who used it when I came up with it, in my own head, in 1995. The point was that all the domestic discretionary spending cuts that Livingston was coming up with were supposed to create a government that was "lean, but not mean." Indeed, using props that themselves were misreported in later tellings, Bob had earlier in the year said he would use a "Cajun scalpel" (a nasty-looking aligator-skinning knife, I think it was) to cut the budget -- clearly using something bigger than a surgeon's instrument, but with a surgeon's precision and touch. Such was the intended message, anyway -- that we were performing careful surgery, not radical chops, but that the surgery would save some serious money. The idea of the Cajun scalpel having worn out, he went to using the "lean, but not mean" formulation to stress, again, that there was nothing to fear, nothing whatsoever, from careful cuts that were taking the fat out of government.
His "lean, but not mean" phrase was quoted in print, if I remember right, two places on the first day he used it, including the Wall Street Journal. And the feedback we were getting on the Hill was good: This was a good way, other staffers told me, to make our point.
But just a few days later, in some big, televised forum or other, Clinton said (without acknowledging the provenance or original meaning of the phrase) that the GOP was being heartless in all of its proposed cuts, whereas he, the president, of course wanted budgetary efficiency, but RATHER than the GOP version of heartlessness, he himself wanted a government that was "lean but not mean." And he said it as if the phrase and the idea were his own. Shaking his head dolefully (what an actor that man was!), he said it was just a shame that the Republicans were letting their meanness get the best of theim.
Of course, it worked. For months, nightly newscasts credited Clinton with wanting a lean but not mean budget (yes, using that exact phrase, and crediting both the words and the sentiments to him). After all, he had the bully pulpit, so when he used the phrase, it got national attention rather than being buried in paragraph 11 of a couple of news stories on page A-12.
And you know what? That's politics. Clinton "plagiarized" that way all the time. I was frustrated as hell, but it would have looked silly for us to complain that he had "stolen" our language (in that situation or a few other similar ones I won't bore y'all with). Similarly, it is utterly silly for the Clintons to bitch and moan about Obama doing the same, especially with Patrick's own permission to do so.
So there.
The Islamist Mob in Canada
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 3:29PM
Ezra Levant has the brutal photos of a Canadian woman who was beaten after filing a complaint against a local Muslim leader. Her attackers shouted, "this is the first instalment." It seems that in Canada, radical Muslims are able to run amok like the Chicago mob of the 1920s.
Free Speech and Islam
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 2:53PM
Lee Harris has written a provocative article for the Weekly Standard on the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy, the absurd Canadian human rights' commissions that have ensnared Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, and the larger conflict between security and freedom of speech in the age of radical Islam.
What differentiates Harris's article from much of what I've read on the subject is that it poses an interesting ethical dilemma that confronts free societies when authors or artists have the potential to trigger violent riots in their criticisms of Islam:
In other words, sure, it's one thing for an author to bravely risk his own life by writing something critical of Islam, but if Muslims will react asymmetrically, and harm totally random bystanders who never made a conscious, courageous, choice to defend free speech, what is the government to do?
Harris notes that under the reign of Charles I in 17th Century England, the government barred ministers from discussing Calvin's idea of predestination, in order to avoid social unrest. He argues that the Western world is now confronted with a similar dilemma, concluding:
Though engaging, I found Harris's argument ultimately fails because he presents a false choice. His tradeoff is premised on the idea that were civilization to sacrifice one of its core values and crack down on free speech, we'd actually gain security in return. But not only is there no guarantee that we would, the reality is that the exact opposite is likely to occur. Islamists feed off of any sign of weakness, and were free societies to abandon free speech based on the whims of an angry mob, it would only encourage the radicals to make more outrageous demands in the future, under the threat of more violence. So, even if stifling free speech theoretically spares some innocents in the short term, over time, such acquiescence to evil puts us all in danger. At the time of the Muhammad cartoon controversy, I felt that the incident was every bit as important to the War on Terror as what happened on the military battlefield. Whatever the front in this war -- legal, cultural, media, or military -- Islamists are committed to using fear and intimidation in order to impose their sick ideology on the world. They are dedicated to exploiting the tolerance and humanity of civilized peoples in order to destroy civilization itself. It's our responsibility to stand up to them at every turn, on every front, in every battle, and send the strong message that their savage tactics will never bully us into abandoning our freedoms.
The Angelina Effect
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 2:28PM
Don't miss Michael Knox Beran's City Journal piece that describes how vacuous celebs like Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Bono and Brad Pitt prop up dictators. But, hey, at least they make themselves feel good. And the PR is priceless. Beran calls them Africrats:
Like earlier practitioners of paternalist charity, today's Africrats propose policies that treat the material effects of Africa's problems-disease, dirty water, hunger-not their underlying causes, which the West, too, once struggled with.
And How Would Bush Pere Know?
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 1:51PM
I respectfully submit that former President Bush is not the right man to decide what is and what is not a valid (much less an "absurd") conservative criticism. Every single time one of these McCain backers attacks his conservative critics, it delays the time when those critics feel comfortable coming around to feeling any enthusiasm for the man -- especially when the attacker was the man who did as much as anybody to subvert the conservative movement in favor of the old-style establishmentarian nonsense. I still well remember a Fred Barnes column (I have it on hard copy, but not electronically) from November or early December of 1988 in which he reported the long and vindictive memories of the people who organized the first Bush administration. Barnes said there was a clear hierarchy to who would get jobs under Bush 41: First, those who had been with Bush back in 1980 (against Reagan); then ones who had joined the Bush orbit (not the Reagan/Bush one) in the eight intervening years; then those who were strongly with Bush in 1988, and only then would Reaganites who had stayed neutral in 1988 get considered. In other words, even though Reagan saved Bush's career from the scrap heap and even though Bush won the GOP race in 1988 in large part because of what seemed a tacit endorsement from Reagan, the Bush administration would still hold it against those who eight long years ago had supported the Gipper.
Worse, Bush then governed almost like the second coming of Gerald Ford. His lips lied. He denigrated "the vision thing." He marginalized domestic policy thinkers in his administration such as Jim Pinkerton. And he almost fumbled, terribly, the opportunity to put the nail in the Soviet coffin, even going so far as to refuse to receive the then-rising, clearly anti-Communist Boris Yeltsin. And so on, leading directly into his pathetic loss to an already damaged Bill Clinton who seemd anything like a juggernaut at the time.
So the elder Bush says he "gets a little annoyed" about conservative criticisms of McCain. Some of us still get annoyed about how the elder Bush betrayed all those who got over their doubts about him and supported him as Reagan's natural heir, only to find that he was anything but.
I'd Rather Be Immortal by Not Dying
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 1:03PM
Sean Higgins points us to the story of the undead Laura Todd. A typo on somebody else's death certificate has led her bank to cancel an account (nice of them to send a letter of condolence, though) and the IRS to refuse to process her tax returns, among other indignities. "I don't think people realize how difficult it is to be dead when you're not," Todd said. I hereby award that the quote of the week award, and it's only Monday.
Clinton Campaign Launches War Over Words
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 12:10PM
The Clinton campaign just held a media conference call with communications director Howard Wolfson and Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern in which they blasted Obama for borrowing liberally from a speech given by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Wolfson also noted Obama's waffling on his pledge to use public financing in the general election, and argued that given his thin resume, Obama's candidacy is based on his rhetoric and promises, which these incidents raise serious questions about.
"If your asking an electorate to judge you by your promises and you break them, by your rhetoric and you lift it, than there is a fundamental problem with your candidacy," Wolfson said.
McGovern declared that, "If you use somebody else's words, or somebody else's ideas, you should give credit to them." He said when he first heard Patrick's speech, he found it inspiring, but when he heard that Obama had lifted his words, he found it "less inspiring and more calculating." He also suggested that the incident raises questions about the origins of Obama's other speeches.
Tying it to the Clinton campaign's criticism that Obama had stolen her economic plan, McGovern said that we need a president who has original ideas, "not just somebody who can copy somebody's homework." McGovern also said that electing a president "shouldn't be like 'American Idol'" and that "this is more than about show business."
Wolfson was asked to respond to the fact that Patrick himself, who is a friend and endorser of Obama, gave permission to Obama to use his words without attribution.
But that didn't change anything, Wolfson responded, because there are two victims in a case of plagiarism, the writer whose work is being taken, and the reader who assumes those are the words of the author. "The public has an expectation that the words are your own," Wolfson said, which is especially true with Obama, whose entire candidacy is based on the "power of his rhetoric."
Asked whether the Clinton campaign was confident that there
weren't examples of Clinton lifting rhetoric from other
politicians, Wolfson said he's sure the media and the Obama
campaign would be looking into it, but it's different with Clinton
because she is running a substantive campaign.
"She's not running on the strength of her rhetoric, she's not
running to be orator in chief," he said.
Here is video of Patrick and Obama side by side, which leaves no doubt where Obama found his inspiration.
Is Obama Going For The Biden Endorsement?
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 11:01AM
The Illinois hopemonger borrows liberally from his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Spitzer's "Crack Tax"
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 10:25AM
NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer wants to tax cocaine, heroine, and marijuana. But libertarians shouldn't get too excited--he still plans to keep them illegal.
A Win-Win For McCain
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 10:15AM
I'm no fan of public financing of elections, but it strikes me that politically speaking, John McCain's insistence that Barack Obama stay true to his pledge to use public financing in the general election if the Republican candidate agreed to it, is a master stroke. If McCain locks Obama into the public financing system in a general election, Obama would be giving up a massive fundraising edge over McCain. More likely, Obama will break his pledge, because he'd be crazy to forgo the windfall of donations he'd receive as the Democratic nominee. That will allow McCain to expose Obama--for all his talk about ushering in a "new kind of politics," at the end of the day, he's just like any other politician who will abandon his principles for cash. Already, this has led the Washington Post editorial board to hit Obama for waffling and campaign finance reform groups to pressure Obama into honoring his commitment. Liberal bloggers have contended that Obama never actually made a pledge, but I think this, as noted in the Post editorial, is pretty clear:
Israel's French Friend
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 9:44AM
Noah Pollak has collected some pretty awesome recent statements by Nicolas Sarkozy:
For Presidents' Day: Crazy First Ladies
Posted by on 2.18.08 @ 9:39AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Thomas Craughwell flips through The Madness of Mary Lincoln, the book that convinced him that Robert Todd Lincoln, "while not exactly the most lovable character in American history, was not the cold-hearted bastard I took him to be." Craughwell predicts that the book "will become a classic of American history. It has everything-a compelling story; a fascinating cast of characters; the thrilling discovery of long-lost documents; shrewd analysis of the people, the period, and the sources; and it's a pleasure to read. Here is a model of the historian's art."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Tim Pawlenty for Veep?
Posted by on 2.17.08 @ 6:08PM
Jonathan Martin reports on the buzz around the Minnesota governor. I saw Pawlenty speak at CPAC 2007 and wasn't particularly impressed, but I can certainly see the appeal of putting Minnesota in play.
Kosovar Independence Declared
Posted by on 2.17.08 @ 5:27PM
Wire story here. James Poulos was writing about the negotiations over "final status" for Kosovo back in 2006, for AmSpec and also for The Weekly Standard. Not surprising that the parliament in Pristina has run out of patience.
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Republic, Regained
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
