To read the blogs today, you'd be led to believe that Barack Obama is either a malignant sexist, or an endearing saint who would never use language to attack his political opponents. Why is it so hard to grasp what most likely happened?

1. Sarah Palin's "What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? One wears lipstick," joke was one of the more memorable from the Republican convention.

2. Barack Obama and his advisers wanted to answer that joke with a pun arguing that while Palin may be a new figure on the political scene, she still represents the unpopular/failed policies of the Bush administration.

Yes, others have used the phrase, including McCain. But it's hard to believe Obama just randomly decided to use the phrase for the first time, unaware of what would be a perceived proximity to Palin's convention joke. The Obama audience certainly seemed to get the joke.

Obama cannot be simultaneously heraled as the greatest political orator since JFK, while also not having to take responsibility when he says something unartful. In other words, he tried to say something witty and has now had his own joke flipped against him.

Of course, he wasn't calling her a pig. But I do think it's fair to ask if he was making a subtle jab at John McCain's age when he followed up the lipstick remark with, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

Again, I think Obama was only talking about the McCain/Palin policies, but to deny he was making any kind of verbal jab is the kind of blind allegiance that calls into question the intellectual honesty of Obama supporters. Instead, they should own it. He made a fair point, even a strong point. This should, and so easily could, be a day in which Obama was putting McCain on the defensive for this unethical ad.

Liberal bloggers and the mainstream media have been reporting on Sarah Palin's complicated history on The Bridge to Nowhere pork project. Think Progress says Palin is "lying" about her role, while the media is more accurately pointing out that she supported the project before later opposing it, and refused to send the money back to Washington afterwards.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis echoes the "she lied" meme and adds:

How many days in a row do McCain and Palin have to lie about her position on earmarks - she was for the Bridge to Nowhere, but every single day on the stump she outright lies and says she was against it - how many days in a row do Palin and McCain have to treat the media and the voters like chumps before someone in the media calls her on this?

I don't know if that rises to the level of a "lie," but Barack Obama has been on the stump saying Palin switched her position for political gain, not principle. The Club for Growth has hit back today, pointing out that Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere funding and has yet to formally change his position:

"Barack Obama spent the better portion of yesterday attacking Sarah Palin for supporting the Bridge to Nowhere once upon a time even though she had the courage to get rid of it as governor. Yet, when Barack Obama had a chance to kill Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere and spend the money on Katrina victims, he voted -- drum roll please -- No."

"And over the last three years, Barack Obama hasn't changed his tune one bit. He has not disavowed his 2005 vote in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere. And he continues to vote to save specific, egregious earmarks. In 2007, Obama was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to transfer money earmarked for bicycle paths to fixing America's bridges. He voted against the amendment. He was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to eliminate earmarks for a Peace Garden in North Dakota and a baseball field in Montana. Barack Obama voted against teh amendment."

From CQ's Molly Hooper on Capitol Hill today:

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland , a two-term Republican who represents some of Atlanta's suburbs, commented about class when asked about the performances under pressure of his party's vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , and the Democratic nominee's wife, Michelle Obama, as they introduced themselves to the nation in their separate convention speeches.

"Honestly, I've never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama," Westmoreland said. "Just what little I've seen of her and Senator [Barack] Obama, is that they're a member of an elitist class . . . that thinks that they're uppity."

Westmoreland declined to elaborate further, though he did repeat one part of his comment when asked to clarify.

"Uppity, you said?" he was asked.

"Yeah, uppity," Westmoreland replied.

Later, Westmoreland's press secretary offered a clarification.

"This was an adjective for elitism, not a code word. It was obviously not a racially tinged remark," said the press secretary, Brian Robinson.

Barack Obama has had a tenuous relationship with the Fox News Channel, whether it was one of his aides getting into a shoving match with Bill O'Reilly, or Obama following John Edwards' lead in refusing to take part in a FNC sponsored Democratic debate earlier this year. But the always excellent Ari Melber reports that's all about to change:

Yes, Sen. Barack Obama is headed for Fox News, in a bid for Republican votes, by appearing for the first time ever on Bill O'Reilly's prime-time show. While McCain aims his acceptance speech at voters beyond his base, Obama will be talking to the bright red Republicans who watch O'Reilly's highly rated show.

What a smart and savvy move by the Obama campaign. Millions of Republicans and conservative voters will be tuning into Fox News tomorrow night and will likely be seeing Obama on camera in an extended capacity for the first time since is own acceptance speech last week.

Here at Invesco Field, the reaction to Barack Obama's presidential nomination acceptance speech was positive but not overwhelming. "Too stumpy," was the reaction from several in attendance, including supporters and the media. The "stumpy" tag is a reference to Obama's stump speech that he gives at regular campaign stops.

However, several moments generated not just loud applause but visible emotional reactions from those around me in the stands. The moments that stood out: Obama's line about McCain being willing to chase Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell," but being unwilling to "chase him to the cave," where he hides. The crowd also took particular fondness near the end of Obama's speech when he made a direct challenge to McCain to debate the issues.

Overall, I thought it was a very good speech, though not his best rhetorically. But that's the trade off, because Obama clearly chose to aim more for substance than lofty words in his address. It's also a great barometer of just how high the expectations are now for when Obama speaks. His speech was better than any at the convention, with the exception of maybe Bill Clinton's. But when Obama is now considered the best speaker in American politics, anything less than sublime perfection will be seen as simply adequate. But for those who haven't heard him speak much, I'm guessing the speech will have a deep resonance.

Earlier today at the "Big Tent" outside the DNC perimeter, MyBarackObama administrator and former Facebook employee Chris Hughes held a chat with online activists about the role of social networking in the Obama campaign.

Hughes said the top priority of the Obama campaign's online operation is to provide the tools to help online supporters translate their political passion into real world results.  "It was clear the campaign was going to value empowering grassroots activists," he said of his decision to leave Facebook for the Obama campaign back in February, 2007. "I don't think I would have left work for any other candidate."

And there's strong evidence to support his lofty goals. So far, more than 1.3 million users are connected to Obama Facebook page, with hundreds of local groups from across the country. "20 people at a small school can be a lot," he said of convincing small groups of people to get involved in the process.

Hughes was asked to compare the Obama online operation to that of the McCain campaign. Rather than go with the conventional wisdom that McCain and Republicans simply "don't get" the Internet, he said, "It's much more about how we value grassroots support.. It's not that our tools are that much slicker or better. Sure, the tech has to be good, but it has to work."

Looking forward, Hughes said more than 10,000 campaign-organized house parties are scheduled for tomorrow night's nomination acceptance speech. As part of the ongoing effort to familiarize Americans with Obama, Hughes said every house party have been mailed an Obama biography DVD.

Over the following weekend the campaign will help coordinate grassroots efforts, including voter registration and showing supporters how to sign up for absentee ballots.

And there will be additional incentives for those who organize and raise money online for the Obama campaign. Hughes said that those who establish and meet online fundraising goals get to participate in a conference call with Obama.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial today countering the shallow articles by Slate's Jacob Weisberg and New York Magazine's John Heilemann claiming that if Barack Obama is not elected president it's because America is racist.

A few rather obvious things I would add: If white voters not supporting a black candidate is racist, then aren't African-Americans supporting Barack Obama largely because he is black an example of racial prejudice? It may be done out of pride, but it's still placing one's racial identity over other considerations.

Second question for Weisberg/Heilemann: Very few Democrats voted for Michael Steele in his successful run for Maryland Lt. Governor, and his subsequent unsuccessful bid for governor. Are those voters racist? Or, does that only count if you're not white, but are a Democrat?

All this is not to say that race won't be a factor in the election. But to assume that it will be the only, or main, factor for Obama not winning is a straw man argument. I can think of a few, non-racist, reasons people might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee: They are Republicans, they support the war in Iraq, they favor limited government, they are disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, they don't think Obama is ready to be president, they are veterans/former POWs who want to support a fellow vet, they are voting for a third party candidate, they do not vote, they support gun rights, they oppose abortion, etc.

What Obama's political ascension really says about America is almost entirely positive. Democrats declined to vote for the most famous family in their party in favor of an African-American neophyte, and Republicans so far have made race far less of a factor than Democrats did in the primaries, countering stereotypes about how Republicans think/vote.

And remind me again how many black politicians have been elected to office by our enlightened, European pals?

John McCain's campaign released a new add "Passed Over" at 3am. The significance? The ad is another clear pitch for Hillary Clinton supporters who have still not crossed over to support Barack Obama.

"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth," says the ad's female voiceover. The ad uses footage of several interviews with Clinton in which she questions Obama's specifics on policy proposals and says his campaign "has become increasingly negative."

The ad ends with this zinger, "The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it." The ad already has over 100,000 views:

There's a lot of good information to take from the God-o-Meter's interview with Saddleback pastor Rick Warren. Specifically, Warren gave his thoughts on how John McCain and Barack Obama performed in this weekend's Compassion Forum.

On whether Obama can win over evangelicals and if abortion is a "make or break issue" for religious voters:

It all depends on the hierarchy of their worldview of what matters most to them. My gut reaction when it was over was that Obama will pick up probably some younger votes and McCain will probably pick up some older votes and it might come down to which group winds up showing up that the polls.

On whether Obama's "above my paygrade" response was "acceptable ambivalence," in Warren's view:

No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that.

And finally, on whether McCain was tipped off in advance to Warren's questions:

They're dead wrong. That's just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well.

There's a lot more to the interview, all worth a read.

The conventional wisdom is that John McCain has significantly more riding on his vice presidential pick than Barack Obama does. However, the majority of VP chatter online these days appears to be focused on the Dem side. And with that enhanced attention comes criticism. To that end, many progressive bloggers are upset that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is apparently at the top of Obama's VP list.
 


An anti-Facebook group has formed, "100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP," although the ground currently has 219 members. Journalist and Dem consultant Ari Melber chronicles the anti-Bayh sentiment:

It is somewhat staggering that Bayh holds any great mentioner status at all. Unlike Obama, he is a centrist Washington fixture who strongly backed the Iraq war. His red state victories are based more on family dynasty than personal dynamism.

The Booman Tribune adds:

It would be hard to fu** up (CQ edit) Barack Obama's brand any worse than picking John McCain's honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. We really shouldn't have to say anything more than that.

So, it appears that Obama's VP pick does matter after all. Bayh might be a good pick to appease Washington insiders who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries, or for those who think he could bring Indiana over to the Democrats. But it's clear that Obama's online base, a faction whose influence should not be underestimated, wants a candidate whom they feel better represents the message of change that has been so integral to Obama's early success.

Sure, the latest McCain "celeb" web ad against Obama isn't as well-produced as its predecessors, but does that make it racist? The "Fan Club" ad, posted to You Tube yesterday, sticks with the theme that Obama is popular around the world, but isn't ready to lead at home. The ad itself contains only one substantive attack against Obama, accusing him of voting to raise taxes on anyone making more than $42,000/year. The rest of the ad is more effective as media criticism, showing how local and national media often swoon over the candidate.





But Talking Points Memo's Erik Kleefeld sees a more sinister message in the ad:

"We know he doesn't have much experience, and isn't ready to lead, but that doesn't mean he isn't dreamy," says the announcer, followed by footage of two women at rallies -- both of whom are white, mind you -- complimenting Obama's looks. How long until "Barack, call me" ends up in a McCain paid TV ad?

So, what would happen if the McCain campaign had only used video of black men and women voicing their support for Obama? Would that also be "evidence" that Republicans are trying to scare the electorate by portraying Obama as a purveyor of racial identity politics? This seems like another sad case of some Obama supporters taking any opposition to his candidacy as de facto racism.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first or only time TPM readers and authors have overreached in recent weeks to accuse McCain of fanning the racist flames. More recent examples here, here, here, here and here.

Jake Tapper also sees racial implications in the McCain ad.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder resists the racist clarion calls as well, both from factual and strategic points of origin:

Well, the view that McCain hasn't gone there is shared by Barack Obama, for one. And those who see racial imagery in these web ads (black woman, white man, older white woman, younger white woman, white woman, white woman, white man, Wayne and Garth)  are racializing the web ads and drawing attention to them.

The McCain and Obama campaigns have traded allegations of "playing the race card," but we may be seeing an entirely new dimension of political attacks. One of McCain's recent ads, "The One," seeks to highlight what conservatives see as arrogant comments from Obama. When the ad first came out, some critics questioned the effectiveness of using a side-by-side comparison of Obama and Moses to attack Obama. But now that the ad has become quite popular, with more than a million You Tube views, new allegations are falling from the sky.

First, the video:





Steve Waldman highlights on a memo from the Democratic Eleison Group, alleging that the McCain ad compares Obama to the Antichrist:

This is the use of religion at its very worst in politics because it is an attempt to subtly and perhaps even subconsciously play on some of the deepest fears of millions of evangelical Americans.

Amy Sullivan, who covers religious issues, writes in Time that there are parallels between the ad and the Left Behind series:

It's not hard to see how some Obama-haters might be tempted to make the comparison. In the Left Behind books, Carpathia is a junior senator who speaks several languages, is beloved by people around the world and fawned over by a press corps that cannot see his evil nature, and rises to absurd prominence after delivering just one major speech.

Over at National Review, Mark Hemingway writes:

That's right, after the racist charges didn't stick and then their ridiculous Nazi accusations  were ignored, there was only one other place they could go. Obama's defenders are now accusing McCain of using his campaign ads to call Obama theanti-Christ. Marvel for a second at the absurdity of that.

John McCain and Barack Obama sat down with Entertainment Weekly to discuss their pop culture favorites. They don't seem to have a whole lot in common (both love HBO's "The Wire). But both received the same question near the end of their respective interviews:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: If you could be any superhero, which one would you be?

JOHN McCAIN: Batman. He does justice sometimes against insurmountable odds. And he doesn't make his good works known to a lot of people, so a lot of people think he's just a rich playboy.

Last question, and the fate of the Republic hangs on your answer: If you could be any superhero, which superhero would you be?

BARACK OBAMA: I was always into the Spider-Man/Batman model. The guys who have too many powers, like Superman, that always made me think they weren't really earning their superhero status. It's a little too easy. Whereas Spider-Man and Batman, they have some inner turmoil. They get knocked around a little bit.

On a related note, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who has a cameo in the new Batman movie, disputes the popular theory that The Dark Knight endorses the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror. Leahy tells Think Progress:

Sorry Glenn but that's not just a stretch, it's a hoot. But I do grant the parallels between Superman's nemesis Lex Luthor and the Vice President.

Via Seton Motley, we learn that Barack Obama was for being compared to Paris Hilton before he was against it:

A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Earlier this year, Barack Obama got himself in a bit of trouble with Democrats for comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But that hasn't stopped some smart political observers from noting how Obama could do for the left what Reagan once did for the right: become an iconic figure who taps into a national sentiment that fundamentally shifts the nation's political alignment.

An Obama supporter has uploaded this new video, which includes some great archival footage of Californians opposing a Reagan presidency because they saw him as an inexperienced celebrity. Some of the video is inaccurate and/or misleading. For instance, Reagan gave his historic Berlin Wall speech near the end of his second term, not as a candidate for the presidency. But on the whole, the video's point is well-taken.

John McCain has yet another new web video going after Barack Obama. This one compares Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and includes footage from Obama's Berlin speech. From the ad text:

"He's the biggest celebrity in the world ... but is he ready to lead?

Dana Milbank's column today on Barack Obama's transformation into the " presumptuous nominee," has been making its way around the blogs today. Conservative outlets are largely having fun with the piece, as it aligns with their narrative of Obama as arrogant.

However, liberal bloggers are in fact-checking mode, and have discovered that the key quote from Milbank's piece is likely to have been quoted out of context. In his piece, Milbank cites a source at a meeting between Obama and congressional Democrats, where Obama says:

"This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

But some bloggers like Matthew Yglesias are pointing to a post by Marc Ambinder, which says the actual quote went like this:

It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.

Also, Milbank's colleague Jonathan Weisman, who first reported the alleged Obama quote, now acknowledges its accuracy is being challenged by the Obama campaign.

John McCain's campaign has released another hard-hitting ad today, this time going after Barack Obama for not visiting with American troops during last week's overseas trip. The ad is an improvement over previous McCain efforts because it plays into themes about Obama that the Republican base wants to hear, i.e. that he's not a strong commander-in-chief type like McCain. The ad has also reached more than 300,000 views on You Tube in less than two days - very impressive for a McCain ad. The one downside for McCain: Even his own successes are still all about Obama and not about what McCain would do as president.



Conversely, this new MoveOn.org sponsored ad "Hope: It Could Happen to You" for Barack Obama lacks the serious tone of McCain's effort. That can be mostly explained by the fact that it's targeted for a MTV audience. But the insanely popular Will.i.am video demonstrated that Obama supporters don't need poor man's Daily Show fodder to connect with young voters. Of course, Jon Stewart himself has noted that MoveOn has an uncanny ability to make even winning issues for liberals look bad.

While the American media has taken a largely positive view of Barack Obama's overseas trip this week, cartoonists in the Arab world have a decidedly different take on the situation. Obama's candidacy may have indeed brought some hope for change to those in the Middle East who feel White House policy has been too tilted towards Israel over the past 30 years. But after Obama's comments about an undivided Jerusalem, and his meetings this week with Israeli leaders, that view may be quickly changing.

Al-Ghad, June 9, 2008
Headline: "Obama, the American Candidate."

The Anti-Defamation League has compiled a series of cartoons that portray Obama and John McCain as being puppets of, or unfairly favoring, Israeli policies. Some of the images are fairly benign, while others have a clear anti-Semitic bent, and a few portray Obama in a racially insensitive fashion. For what it's worth, McCain isn't treated any better. From the ADL release:

The American elections have provided an excuse for the Arab media to promulgate perverse, bigoted and age-old conspiracy theories that portray Israelis and Jews as controlling the candidates.

It's not too often that a presidential election features a contest between two media darlings. Nonetheless, John McCain's campaign is still pretty upset about the press advantage that appears to be swinging Barack Obama's way. I'll be discussing this unusual argument on MSNBC today from 12:-12:30pm EST.

The consensus, including on this blog, is that Obama's overseas trip has been a boon to his campaign. Here are some dissenting takes.

While appearing on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, Andrea Mitchell complained that Barack Obama has been giving "fake interviews" during his visits to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell says they are fake, because no independent journalists were allowed to interview Obama, with the footage instead being provided by the U.S. military and the Obama campaign:







A pair of Iraqi bloggers have weighed in on the trip as well. Omar and Mohammed Fadhil say Obama is basing his travels on electoral politics and is benefiting from Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki being in a campaign fight of his own:

This visit, for Obama, is just a necessary evil -- part of an electoral campaign and not a sincere fact-finding mission. The fact that Obama made Afghanistan his first stop (after arriving in Kuwait, just next door to Iraq) suggests that it's his electoral campaign that sets his priorities when it comes to the war on terrorism, not the actual map and course of the war.

The Talisman Gate blog also weighs in on the trip, saying Obama needs to better explain his goals for the country and the larger Middle East region.

The McCain campaign sent an email to supporters this morning asking them to vote on their favorite song to exemplify how "the media is in love" with Barack Obama. The accompanying You Tube video shows clips of the news media, particularly MSNBC, either making positive comments about Obama, or commenting on how other members of the media favor his campaign.

From the McCain campaign email:

It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair.

The video is pretty funny, even if it uses examples like Chris Matthews that has already been hashed out by media critics for some time. Still, it's another good example of the McCain campaign's increasing media sophistication. When the progressive blogger reaction does hit, expect them to point out the hypocrisy of a man who has joked, "the media is my base," now complaining about positive press coverage of his opponent.

On the home front, liberal bloggers spent the weekend in Austin, Texas contemplating what a Barack Obama victory in November would mean. Meanwhile, the presumptive Democratic nominee took a trip overseas and is in Iraq today meeting with high-level Iraqi and American military officials.

The Confederate Yankee says it's ok to call Obama's trip a success so long as you realize that the trip is only possible because President Bush ignored Obama's original opposition to the war and his claims that the surge would fail:

So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort. Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.

Much of the debate surrounding Obama's trip so far concerns whether or not Iraq's Maliki-led government has endorsed a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Liberal bloggers say he's repeatedly made such demands, while conservative sites like Red State say the media was too quick to interpret Maliki's remarks.

James Joyner smartly points out the bright side of the double-talk coming from the Iraqi government:

Well, yeah.  Which is precisely how governments everywhere act.  Indeed, this would appear to be a sign that Maliki and company are more ready for prime time than it had appeared.

Is cheering on duplicity a sign of how low our expectations are for Iraq's government? Possibly, but when the agreed upon end point for the war is a government that can stand up on its own, this may ultimately prove more important than whether the government's leaders endorse a particular candidate's short-term political goals for the region.


UPDATE: I'll be WDEL radio at about 12:45pm EST discussing Obama's trip. You can listen here.

Charles Krauthammer is leading the blog discussion today with his Washington Post column detailing Barack Obama's love affair with himself. The Obama as egotistical theme has been running through conservative circles for a few months now. So, rather than examine the merits of Krauthammer's column, what's most interesting to me is to see how the convergence of conservative talking points has made its way here from the blogs, to the party mouthpieces and now to the respected columnists.

But is a politician supposedly  full of themselves really all that surprising? Consider the tremendous amount of ego it takes to believe you are the most-qualified person to be the leader of the free world. Regardless of his merits as a person and candidate, does anyone sincerely believe McCain suffers from an abject poverty of ego? In Obama's case, the test case seems to be more about how well he balances confidence against cockiness. In other words, you may in fact be arrogant, but don't act like it.

Ed Morrissey takes a similar route, noting:

In ways large and small, Obama has demonstrated arrogance and conceit in ways not before seen in presidential politics.  Americans may like their Congressmen and Senators to be arrogant and haughty at times, but not Presidents.  They want humble men -- or men who at least can act humble -- in the White House.

And Firedoglake's Attaturk follows the path of the Republican attack line:

One thing that comes with a six-figure (minimum) salary for punditry is a complete lack of creativity.  Yes, the MEME must be renewed, revisited, restated, regurgitated.

From Bill Kristol, to Ron Fournier, to Chuckles Krauthammer the theme must be laid down.

Once again, the Barack Obama sphere of influence dominates today's discussion in the blogosphere. Three separate stories are getting lots of attention: Obama's continued complaints about how conservatives treat his wife, the media entourage following Obama to Iraq and, oh yeah, his campaign raised $52 million dollars last month. The level of attention to these respective subjects should perhaps be flipped to reflect their importance, but this is what and how the blogs want to discuss them.

On a side note, who would have thought Glamour magazine would have such interesting blogging for political types? The talented Townhall.com voice Amanda Carpenter has been penning occasional entries on the site for months now, and now Obama sits down with editor Cindi Leive to speak out against his wife's critics ("Debate me, not Michelle"). I've already covered this ground before: Obama can't have his wife making political speeches on the campaign trail and then complain when the other side criticizes her. The same goes for Cindy McCain, although she has played a less prominent role.

Obama specifically targeted National Review for scorn, to which Byron York smartly replies:

I don't see how anyone could argue that Michelle Obama isn't news.  Was Hillary Clinton not news in 1992?  Some candidates' wives are higher-profile than others, and Michelle Obama is pretty far up there; she speaks in public a lot, and she says newsworthy things.  My guess is she would be a pretty involved First Lady.  So it seems to me she should get more coverage, not less.

Josh Marshall says John McCain is "adopting Obama's position" on Afghanistan. That's about as intellectually honest as conservatives saying over the past two weeks that Obama was shifting his Iraq position to match McCain's. Which is to say, it's not true.

Hilzoy joins in on calling "gotcha!" by compiling past McCain statements on Afghanistan, and finds:

Until yesterday, McCain has only advocated sending NATO troops. This may be because as long as we stay in Iraq, we have no additional troops to send. 

I think this demonstrates one of the many failures of looking at national security (or any other long term national interest) through the prism of a blogger's mentality. Just because McCain is now more open to sending additional troops to Afghanistan does not mean he is "adopting" the opposing candidate's strategy. If so, Hilzoy and Marshall should have been calling Obama a hypocrite for saying he would "refine" his Iraq strategy after meeting with U.S. military leaders and for his softer criticism of the surge in recent weeks. Both of these movements by the respective candidates represent pragmatic leadership over the course of an 18 month campaign. At the end of the day, what matters most is who has the best judgment and the best plans to succeed, not who comes up with each specific policy proposal first.

The questions about Obama, and his supporters, alleged lack of humor continues. Maureen Dowd, asks, "May We Mock, Barack?" And James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times also chimes in to comment on Democrats' "irony deficiency."

Comedian Andy Borowitz is a fairly lukewarm satirist, but Dowd includes a joke he made about Obama that's pretty spot on:

On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz satirized on that subject. He said that Obama, sympathetic to comics' attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this:

"A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, 'I was expecting the farmer's daughter.' Barack Obama replies, 'She's not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.' "

I think Dowd's right here. A lot of people are wondering how they can make fun of Barack Obama without being called a racist, or right-wing goon. I'm not alone in this observation, but it's been apparent for months that to many Obama supporters, to not embrace his candidacy is in itself a form of "racism." At the end of the day, it's this relentless lack of humor and humility that may form the basis of acceptable Obama humor.

I don't want to pick on Ari Melber, because he's a fine journalist and analyst. But I do think he falls into the "too serious" crowd here. I mean, seriously, you're complaining about "offensive" content in Jib Jab video?

Some parts are funny, several items are in poor taste -- especially a segment of Sen. McCain in the hospital -- but it's all a bit more balanced than the New Yorker's one-sided smear routine.

If there's a valid complaint here, it's that the cable networks have not disclosed whatever ritualistic satanic pact they have formed with the jib jab "masterminds" to keep airing this unfunny schlock in order to fill air time. It's sort of like Andy Borowitz, but without the scathing insights.

But today's gold medal for irony deficiency can be found over at the Huffington Post where John McQuaid complains that Dowd is paying too much attention to what Obama eats, and says of the candidate's apparent distaste for junk food:

He should be hailed as a role model, not damned for failing to wolf down every last fry.

UPDATE: You can read the rest of Borowitz's "Obama-approved" jokes here.

Courtesy of Marbury, we have the "Top Ten Obama hubris moments." Whether or not you find the Obamas to be elitist, this is an interesting list to browse. And it's not written by someone with a reflexive opposition to Obama's candidacy.

#1 Announcement Speech:

Speaking in front of the building where Abraham Lincoln began his political career, Obama referred to that "tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer", in such a blatant attempt to steal Lincoln's mantle that he may as well have been wearing a false beard and breeches. Let's think about that. Lincoln's CV: ended slavery, led the country through a civil war. Obama's: passed Illinois's first earned-income tax credit. Now, that is what I call audacious.

The New York Daily News catapulted to the top of Memeorandum's blog chatter this afternoon with a story about how Barack Obama's campaign removed Obama's critique of the Iraq surge from its campaign website:

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

The story has been largely ignored by the progressive blogosphere, but is running wild on conservative outlets and in some mainstream media sites. Robert Stacy McCain calls the move "Orwellian," while Townhall's Matt Lewis says the move shows a "more sinister, secretive Obama." Jim Gergaghty and the NRO team highlight what they call the "glaring contradictions" in Obama's war statements.

However, there are two problems with these critiques. First, campaign websites are not typically held to the same rules as independent blogs, who often frown on revising pages or deleting errors/mistakes without prior acknowledgment. Second, in the same, very brief Daily News story, we get an explanation from the Obama campaign:

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

Just yesterday, Obama penned an op-ed for The New York Times detailing that while the surge has been successful, it doesn't change his overall view of the war:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. 

There are plenty of areas worthy of criticism when it comes to Obama's Iraq policy. But to say his campaign's removal of outdated statements reflects an attempt to rewrite history or shift his position into alignment with John McCain is just not accurate.

Bonus: Gateway Pundit provides the previous and current versions for compare and contrast

You cannot tell a joke in political circles anymore. At least, you can't tell a funny joke. In fact, the new Washingtonian barometer for gauging whether or not you just made a funny is the corresponding shrieks of outrage from Beltway types. Consider the pained cries emerging from politically correct circles about the above image mocking the smears made against Barack Obama and his wife.

When political discourse is your meal ticket, it's reasonably safe for someone to assume your sense of humor wilts in a personality wasteland. But even with that said, people sure seem to be taking themselves, and the political humor of others, more seriously than ever.

Progressive types have been complaining after nearly every joke John McCain makes on the campaign trail, whether it's "Bomb, bomb Iran," or wryly suggesting that increased cigarette exports to Iran might be one way of thinning the extremist herd. My initial take on McCain's re-wording of the old Beach Boys hit was that it was actually teasing those pushing for military confrontation with Iran, not making light of warfare. How insensitive of me.

And then we saw Bernie Mac tossed under an increasingly crowded bus after he made "salty" remarks at an Obama fundraiser. Mac is a Chicago native. Obama is a Chicago politician, heading a campaign run by people seemingly familiar with the social vibes of Chicago celebrities like Bernie Mac. So, Bernie Mac comes out and does what he's spent a career doing, and is chastised for it by the people who asked for his services. If there's any doubt Obama is trying to have it both ways, consider his campaign put out a statement disowning Mac, while Obama called Mac, "my great friend, one of the kings of comedy"

And if all that weren't enough, the outrage level is in the stratosphere today over the new cover of The New Yorker. The only valid criticism I've seen is that it would have worked better as an insert, rather than the cover image. But it was almost worth it to hear the absolutely ridiculous complaints from liberal political observers. After all, this was an illustration mocking anti-Obama conservatives for spreading rumors about Obama coming from one of the more liberal publications out there. Have any of you ever browsed through the Talk of the Town section?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum says the joke would be funny if it was a joke about McCain:

"If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth -- implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama."

But of course, the inverse is true. Blitt showed more nerve by not talking down to the audience and over-explaining his obvious satire. And as some bloggers have pointed out, there was no correlating anger over similar illustrations, like this one showing John McCain being tortured by his political enemies.

Gawker.com, no bastion of conservative thought, puts it best in a, God forbid, humorous take:

This obvious and heavy-handed satire has enraged Democrats and liberal media critics because now they are pretty sure this nation of child-like imbeciles will believe it to be an un-retouched photograph from the FUTURE.

James Joyner has a solid roundup of the OUTRAGE here.

Although it's too early to say with any certainty, the early conventional wisdom is that Jesse Jackson's widely disparaged comments about Barack Obama may actually help the presumptive Democratic nominee: It helps him appear more moderate and gives him a legitimate excuse to keep Jackson at a safe distance during the general election.

But over at EbonyJet.com, Eric Eastor says that while Jackson's comments were crudely delivered, they represent a valid concern amongst some African-Americans:

The fear among critics is that the real audience that day was not the Black people in the pews at all, but the white people in middle America looking for a strong signal that Obama was rejecting the politics of racial division and animosity. By choosing that moment to castigate Black fathers, some worry that Obama gave public voice to what white people whisper about Blacks in their living rooms and cemented his image as a post-racial savior at the expense of Black men.  Whether that was Obama' s intention or whether he just figured it was Father's Day so why not do the absent Father stump speech again is impossible to know, but the event smacked of calculated political expediency that troubled more than a few people.

For a slightly different take, go back and watch Saturday Night Live alum Robert Smigel's "Obama Files" cartoon from earlier this year on the Jackson/Obama relationship:

Abortion doesn't show up in voter surveys as a top issue in the general election. Nonetheless, it's always an issue that can help or hurt a candidate depending on how they handle it. John McCain has a consistently pro-life record, but has run into trouble with some conservative leaders for his support of stem cell research. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is solidly pro-choice, but has been reaching out to evangelical leaders on issues like poverty as a way to circumvent the abortion question.

Today it was reported that the Christian Defense Coalition is launching an effort to tag Obama as the "abortion president." The accompanying picture is fairly shocking. CBN's David Brody:

Folks, The Brody File has been telling you this sort of effort was coming. Some of these pro-life groups look at the polling and find that many Americans either think Obama is either pro-life or they're not sure. This campaign is an attempt to set the record straight. Don't think for a minute this is one 'fringe" group. This effort represents the broader feelings with many conservative Evangelical groups.

However, also in the past week, Obama gave an interview with a Christian magazine in which he said he doesn't believe "mental distress" is a qualification for an individual seeking a late-term abortion:

"Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Much like with recent rhetorical shifts on Iraq, FISA and gun rights, Obama faces a trade off here between independent voters, disaffected Republicans and the progressive Democratic base. It's unlikely that Obama will convince many voters he is a pro-life candidate. But he is earning some tepid praise from conservatives, like Red State diarist Leon H. Wolf, who writes:

It is good to know that whatever Barack personally feels about abortion, he has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised."

Therefore, the trade off question is if Obama can dilute opposition to his candidacy on the abortion question enough that some conservatives voters either feel comfortable voting for him, or sitting the election out.

I'll be on MSNBC at 12:30est today talking about the latest from the Obama campaign. While John McCain is busy managing the shake-up in his campaign, Obama is using his newfound schedule flexibility to focus on raising large amounts of campaign cash. The New York Times says Obama is returning to more traditional high-dollar fundraising events now that he is successfully drawing in Clinton's big donors.

While the money narrative has long been in Obama's favor, another report indicates that even  self-described "lifelong Republicans" are donating to the Obama campaign.

There are no perfect election simulators or predictions. Otherwise, we wouldn't be burdened by such minor afflictions as voting. But that hasn't stopped many from trying. The pollsters are most infamous for gaming election match-ups, with varying degrees of success this cycle.

Combining the latest polling data, Election-Projection.net does its best to forecast how the contest between John McCain and Barack Obama will play out. Based on the polls, both state and national, the site says Obama has a 95.8% chance of winning. I suppose that's fair to say, as they say, if the election were held today. The site has some great features and I'll definitely add it to my bookmarks, though a few of the state probability meters did catch my attention (not in a good way). For instance:

McCain has less than a 10% chance of winning Pennsylvania and Colorado? And less than a 25% chance of taking New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Ohio? These are zero sum estimates, so I can't fault them too much. After all, McCain could win 49% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but that's still a "loss."

Of course, if you disagree with the site's rankings, you can enter your own probability numbers with their interactive feature.

Charles Krauthammer continues the conservative line on Obama's policy shifts and says:

By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

So, is creating a negative Obama/Clinton association the new way for conservatives to attack Obama, or is it more a media creation? Salon's Joan Walsh says the media may have fairly criticized Bill Clinton during the primaries, but should back off:

Clinton has finally listened to his critics, left the spotlight to his wife, and nursed his grievances in private -- and he's still getting criticized!

I'll be on MSNBC this morning at around 11:30 to discuss Bill Clinton's reported "beef" with the Obama campaign.

In short, I'll argue that while Clinton may be upset at how his reputation was dinged during the Democratic primary, the best remedy is for him to campaign as enthusiastically for Obama as possible. Politics does not tend to be kind to those who feel sorry for themselves.

Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader is accusing Barack Obama of trying to "talk white," and appealing to "white guilt" in his quest for the White House. The immediate response has been to call Nader's comments "racially divisive." That's obvious enough. But I disagree with the quickly forming conventional wisdom that these comments are "racist" against Obama. But the comments are really racially charged against both black and white Americans. After all, Nader is literally saying that to be all things he opposes, "pro-corporate," is to be "white." At the same time, he assumes that Obama must address certain issues like poverty because he is African-American.

As Ed Morrissey writes:

I'm not here to defend Obama, but this attack is simply despicable.  It demands, as the Left often does, that minorities subjugate their own opinion for groupthink, and that they offer no deviation from the Leftist orthodoxy, lest one give up their own ethnic identity and be called a traitor merely for having their own opinions.

Protein Wisdom's Karl adds:

In short, Nader's attacks were every bit as incendiary as -- and more defective than -- the rear end of a 1975 Ford Pinto.

Focus on the Family President James Dobson is accusing Barack Obama today of "distorting" the Bible and espousing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson has also been highly critical of John McCain, whom he says may not be "conservative" enough. I use the scare quotes here because one Republican's definition of what it means to be conservative doesn't always comport with another's.

The Dobson attack is a good development for McCain, in so much that it takes the heat off of him and places it on Obama. McCain will never get the high-profile evangelical endorsements that he wants, but second-party attacks on Obama may be even more effective for his cause. As we saw in the 2004 general election with the battle over gay marriage, negative campaigning often drives more voters to the polls than a positive agenda. Secondly, I don't believe McCain needs to worry too much about getting Dobson's endorsement. He'd probably have to spend more time defending the endorsement than bragging about it, and there's just not a lot of evidence that endorsements from any public figures, even those in the evangelical community, sway too many voters. Besides, McCain is already scoring a solid majority of evangelical voters in polls. His fairly recent conversion to the Baptist faith could help him in the South as well (along with helpful campaigning from Mike Huckabee).

Today's biggest political story is Newsweek's new poll showing Barack Obama with a 15-point-lead over John McCain. Given that we're also mourning the death of legendary comedian George Carlin today, it's only appropriate that we call out this poll, and the treatment it has received in the press today, for its absurdity.

Progressive blogs like Daily Kos have been blogging about the Newsweek poll findings today, but it's conservative blogs who have been digging through the poll's methodology. After all, nearly every other poll has Obama up between 2 and 5 points. As Outside the Beltway's James Joyner writes:

Newsweek has huge swings from month-to-month that just aren't showing up in the other polls. Simply put, there's either something serious wrong with their methodology or that of all the other major polls.

The problem with Newsweek's methodology is that they vastly oversampled Democrats in the poll compared to Republicans. Granted, there should be some degree weighted sampling in favor of Democrats, considering national poll numbers. But most of that shift will already be represented in independent sampling, where Obama has a measured advantage. Conservatives have often complained about Republicans being unfairly undersampled in national media polls. Newsbusters says this is no exception:

As the reader should suspect, the poll questioned more Democrats than Republicans: 231 Republicans to 324 Democrats, plus 307 independents

So, if the poll was so poorly conducted, why no outcries from the McCain campaign? Well, McCain does relish the "underdog" role, so maybe that's part of it. The other major political story of the day is about how McCain's monthly fundraising for May was on par with Obama's. Maybe the McCain campaign wants to use the underdog status to further prod those sometimes reluctant Republican fundraisers who seem to be coming on board?

Over at National Review, Byron York writes that there is a "fundamental misunderstanding, perhaps willful in some cases," of what it means to be "swiftboated" by the political opposition:

Today, there is a tendency to describe any criticism of Barack Obama as "swiftboating."  So far, it's been a pretty effective attack pre-emption device.  But it has nothing to do with "swiftboating"; you can't just "swiftboat" somebody.  Now, if all of the pastors who worked with Obama when he was a community organizer in Chicago came together to criticize his behavior back then, that would qualify.  But until something like that happens, could everyone -- at least those not working for the Obama campaign or the DNC -- dispense with the "swiftboating" talk?

I largely agree with York, both that Obama's surrogates have been effective is employing the term as an attack on Obama's attackers, and that the term itself is not used in a way that properly references its origins.

But there's another problem with the revisionist history that goes into discussing the actual impact of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Democrats, liberals in general, and large segments of the media, have created a narrative in which John Kerry was unfairly attacked, or, "swiftboated," over his Vietnam record, and that he would be president today if not for those unfair and inaccurate allegations.

In reality, the Swift Boat attacks came in two stages. The first stage sought to question Kerry's war record. Most of those attacks were allegations largely based on personal accounts from 30 years ago. So, if liberals want to decry that form of "swiftboating," that's probably fair. But the second, and far more effective public relations battle waged against Kerry concerned what he did after returning from Vietnam. Those attacks were rooted entirely in factual evidence, including video of Kerry's testimony before Congress that Democrats themselves used to promote his biography.

So, swiftboating has lost both its original context and meaning. You might then say that the Obama campaign, and its many surrogates, have succeeded in swiftboating the actual Swift Boat Vets.

The media and the two presidential campaigns are swept up in a debate today over whether Barack Obama broke his word by opting out of the public financing system for the general election. Yesterday, the argument was technically won by McCain. But the upside for Team Obama is that very few low intensity voters seem to feel strongly about the campaign finance issue and there's no history of a single-issue voting bloc either. After all, if there was, we'd probably be marking the end of McCain's second term, not his fight to start his first.

Ultimately, this should be good news for McCain, who has come under criticism from liberal blogs, who allege that he is continuing to break the CFR laws during the primary season, which technically continues until this summer's conventions.



Today, the argument has shifted somewhat. The best conventional wisdom understands that Obama did this because it was the most pragmatic move for him to make. As David Brooks writes, it would  cause more concern if Obama were to sacrifice his greatest campaign advantage to keep a "promise" that almost no one cares about. But it also fits the growing meme that he will sacrifice allies and principles if it helps further his political ambition.

To that end, Rick Klein, author of ABC's The Note, says Obama is Bush, McCain is Kerry:

It's Barack Obama who is running for George Bush's third term, while John McCain just might be pursuing John Kerry's first.

Obama also takes some harsh criticism from the Washington Post editorial pages. They go after McCain a little too, but not until the end of the piece.

While the Post editorial may be a little heavy-handed, it's not quite as bad as Keith Olbermann's distorted take on the debate last night. Olbermann danced around the facts to argue that Obama had never offered to engage in a discussion with McCain about public financing, when multiple sources indicate otherwise.

OLBERMANN:  Mr. McCain has tried to make this about Obama's word and it sounded a little bit like, I don't know, the bride jolted that the altar or something here.  But it seems that Obama fulfilled that word, he agreed to negotiate the thing with McCain, obviously, that didn't work.  Is the McCain version of this dependent on really severe oversimplification of this whole thing?

If Olbermann wanted to make a more convincing argument, he should have followed the lead of progressive blogs like Talking Points Memo, who focus on McCain's alleged own transgressions with real evidence, rather than making a weak theoretical argument. After all, a broken law should be more damning than a broken promise.

UPDATE: Robert A. George has an excellent post railing against both candidates, the "frick and frack" of reform.

Barack Obama has come under scrutiny from the media and conservative bloggers for what they see as hypocrisy from a candidate who has attacked John McCain for his ties to lobbyists. That's because two of the three people (Jim Johnson, Eric Holder) working to screen Obama's possible running mates have close ties to the industry and the "old style" politics Obama frequently attacks.

As I've often noted here, a candidate's perceived strengths often become targeted weaknesses in the heat of a campaign. The best, most recent example being John McCain, who has largely risen to prominence for his passionate opposition to George Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, but is now tagged by Obama and other Democrats as running for Bush's "third term."

There's little evidence to suggest that either Johnson or Holder are corrupt or that Obama is ill-served by employing their talents in his VP vetting process. But conservative bloggers are  nonetheless scoring points in their attacks for two reasons. First, highlighting Obama's alleged hypocrisy on the issue pressures the mainstream media to cover the issue. The specific details may not resonate with independent or Democratic voters, but for vulnerable Republicans, any dents in the Obama armor are seen as significant victories.

But the second, and arguably stronger "victory," came in Obama's explanation of Johnson and Holder's role. Obama appeared unprepared and somewhat uncomfortable standing up to the scrutiny, which is making several conservatives optimistic, like Red State diarist "Moe," writes that Obama isn't nearly as impressive in impromptu settings:

I'm laughing too hard at the sight of watching someone who is supposed to be the second incarnation of Demosthenes fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. Johnson has stepped down from the VP committee.

Over at the CQ Politics' VP Madness, Janet Napolitano is about to be eliminated after the first wave of reader votes. She's getting crushed by Jim Webb, 69 percent to 30 percent. That's understandable, if only because Webb is an ascendant political figure with much-higher name recognition (not everyone loves the Webb idea though).

That's too bad, because Napolitano offers Barack Obama some real assets. First, she's a governor. Second, she's a woman. And on that point, the first female re-elected as governor in Arizona. She's also reportedly gets along well with Obama.

But if you're an Obama supporter or strategist, the most appealing possibility may be the fact that Napolitano could put McCain's home state into play. Not only does that open up the electoral map and play into Obama's strength in the Western states, but it would put McCain on the defensive in what should be his most fertile ground.

The downsides? It's debatable as to whether a VP candidate can carry a state. And if Napolitano doesn't finish her term, she'd be replaced by Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer.

The Barack Obama website allows supporters (or anyone, really) to start their own blog. That led The Urban Grind blogger, "a conservative woman in Manhattan," to see just what kind of crazy blogs she could start on Obama's site. Fake blogs on the "Jewish Lobby" and 9/11 conspiracies were filtered by the site's administrators, but another, equally controversial site, made it through:

I made a page called Jemaa Islamiyah, and called myself Fatima. And sure enough, there was no message saying that my page would have to be approved by an administrator. It went up immediately. And this was back in March. I was surprised at the friendly welcoming comments I received. In fact, I even received an invitation from one guy to be a friend.

Just to refresh your memory, Jemaa Islamiyah was the group behind the Bali bombing. And just so you know, that page is still up on the Obama site.

The site content has been taken down, but it does make for an interesting debate as to how much freedom political campaigns should give to their supporters. News sites like the Washington Post have had their own issues with profane commentors. But unsavory supporters posting on candidate web sites could become the new unwanted campaign contributor/spiritual adviser. How long before we see the McCain or Obama campaigns having to explain the "support" of a political extremist who has posted something controversial on their website?

As has been widely reported, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama met privately in Washington yesterday. Most of the blog discussion concerns whether Clinton was lobbying for the VP spot. Could part of that bargaining be a deal with Obama helping to retire her $30M campaign debt in exchange for the help of her big fundraisers, who would pull in an estimated $50-$100M?

While Obama certainly would welcome the financial support of Clinton's backers, he's also not desperate for cash. Robert Stacy McCain muses:

This will be a chance to see how Obama, who has said he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, handles very sensitive diplomatic negotiations.

It's being reported this afternoon that Barack Obama has decided to keep Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. CQ's Emily Cadei also reports that the DNC will abide by Obama's rules on lobbyist donations.

In short, it's a good move by Obama. First, Dean's 50 state strategy has become extremely popular with state party chairs. Second, it would be hard to fire Dean after the Democrats' huge wins in 2006, even if that success likely had little to do with Dean's 50 state strategy. Dean himself has said the effects of his plan aren't likely to be seen for a few more years at the earliest. Retaining Dean also will please the netroots, who like Obama, but haven't always felt the endearment was reciprocated.

The reaction so far from progressive bloggers have been mostly positive. I agree with Ari Berman's general assessment of how Dean and Obama complement each other:

Dean and Obama complement each other in unlikely ways, with many Dean insiders viewing Obama's campaign as Dean 2.0, the next iteration of the grassroots-fueled, people-powered, bottom-up, web-savvy operation that Dean pioneered in 2003-2004.

My CQ Politics blogging colleague David Nather brought first news yesterday of Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman chatting in the Senate chamber yesterday. We still don't know the exact details of the conversation (Iran?) but we're learning a little more about the tone:

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Joe Gandelman says that even though most Democrats now despise Lieberman, his support of McCain and criticism of Obama could have an effect on Jewish voters:

with Lieberman attacking him, essentially taking on the role of the Zell Miller of 2008, it could hurt Obama's efforts to make inroads with Jewish voters.

Barack Obama and John McCain are two of the most popular politicians in a generation. So, it must be burdensome that each has been endorsed by, and receiving advice from, the two least popular presidents in a generation. President Bush's electoral drag on McCain has been well-documented, but now Jimmy Carter has not only made a high-profile endorsement of Obama, but is offering advice on choosing his vice presidential running mate. Saying that picking Hillary Clinton would be the "wost mistake that could be made," Carter says:

"If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman also thinks Obama won't be looking to Carter for sage advice:

Carter's clout is limited within the Democratic party since he is not exactly the epitome of either electoral success or a successful President. In fact, if he is looking better and better to some these days, it's mostly because President George Bush is now considered by some historians to be a bigger failure as President than Carter was.

During a conference call with bloggers today, John McCain announced that he has sent an invitation to Barack Obama to participate in 10 townhall debates between now and the Democratic National Convention in August.

McCain said he suggested the first debate take place at Federal Hall in New York City on June 12th, describing the format as, "something that really changes the debate in America."

McCain also suggested that the townhall participants could be selected by a respected third party. Asked if he was suggesting the townhall format because that appears to be one of his strengths, McCain noted he's conducted 102 townhall events so far this campaign, saying, "I think it's the best format." And of the American people, "I think they want to participate, they want a great debate."

He was also asked about his speaking style compared to Obama's, after initial reviews of the two speeches last night heavily favored Obama. "I intend to address the substance of issues," McCain said.

more from the conference call after the jump...

UPDATE: McCain's full letter to Obama here.

Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe just sent an email to supporters entitled, "Amost there." The email itself is more reserved than the clickable icon which notes that only 10 more delegate are needed for Obama to "clinch" the nomination. In other words, Obama may not declare absolutely victory in his speech tonight, but the message being sent to supporters is clear. From the text:

We will need 2,118 delegates to secure the nomination, and we're closing in fast -- we're less than 40 delegates away. There are 31 total delegates at stake in today's contests, and a good showing in Montana and South Dakota should take us another big step closer to the magic number.

The conservative reaction has been somewhat muted to news that Barack Obama has clinched the necessary delegates for his party's presidential nomination. It's likely that the full attack on Obama's character and ideological platform will begin tomorrow. In the meantime, conservative bloggers are doing their own speculation about who should be his VP.

Ed Morrissey says Obama may have to pick Hillary whether he likes it or not:

If she wants to be VP, Obama may not have much choice. She can press him all the way to the ballot for the nomination and tie him up all summer in lobbying the superdelegates.

Dean Barnett notes that progressive blogger Matt Stoller wants Clinton loyalist Wesley Clark to be Obama's nominee. Barnett says Clark was an "awful" candidate when he ran in 2004, but adds:

In the one political race he ran before, Wes Clark was an unmitigated disaster. And yet he still may be the best the Democrats can do.

Carol Platt Liebau, who went to law school with Obama, has some kind words for Obama over at the Townhall blog:

No doubt the ensuing campaign will be a spirited and competitive one.  I disagree with just about everything Barack believes, but for this one moment in this one day, it's enough just to say: Congratulations.

And Powerline has a poll on suggested summer reading material for Obama.

With expectations running high that Barack Obama will get enough pledged delegate and superdelegates tonight to make him the presumptive nominee, some of his online supporters, like Andrew Sullivan, are taking a brief moment to celebrate:

Readers are hereby invited to submit quotes, YouTubes, poems, songs, photographs and whatever you dream up to commemmorate the Clintons' departure from presidential politics for, well, at least three years.

But rather than writing Obama-themed poetry, most are now turning their full attention to the next great battle. No, not the general election against John McCain. It's the second stage of their ongoing contest with the Clintons. There's a heated debate taking place over whether Obama should offer Hillary Clinton the vice presidential nomination.

Former Democratic Senate candidate Jim Neal  has a diary up at Daily Kos arguing that Hillary should be the VP for the sake of paty unity.

But most progressives, at least in the blogosphere, are opposed to the so-called "dream ticket." Pam Spaulding encapsulates the anti-Clinton thinking here:

Obama has campaigned on changing DC; Clinton represents everything that's wrong with business as usual in Washington. With all the new registered Democratic voters seeking change, why go this route? Her debt-riddled, consultant class-laden campaign, the obvious sense of entitlement in her universe and the way she her team has polarized voters (and tried to capitalize on open wounds of racism) would only be validated by such a move. As others have said, it presents the same opportunities for Republican smears as if she were at the top of the ticket. They've been waiting and hoping for that opportunity.

In a fundraising email sent to supporters yesterday afternoon, John McCain's campaign included a photo of the Arizona senator shaking hands with Gen. David Petraeus. Clicking on the photo takes you directly to a campaign contribution form on McCain's campaign website. In the email, McCain writes:

Senator Obama speaks openly about his willingness to sit down with our enemies and engage in open talks, but he hasn't gone to Iraq in over two years to meet with our leaders and see that progress is being made on the ground. Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand.

The Obama campaign has since complained about the use of Petraeus in the campaign email. McCain addressed the issue today, promising that his campaign wouldn't use Petraeus in future campaign literature.

Andrew Sullivan goes into greater detail as to why he continues to support Barack Obama despite Sullivan's conservative political philosophy and that "I haven't sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something." But does he leave himself some room to possibly support McCain in the fall?

This is why even as I disagree with him, I want him to win. My heart says so. And the conservative part of my head has a few months to talk me out of it.

Now that the Memorial Day holiday is passed, bloggers are turning their attention back to the presumed general election battle between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many leading conservative bloggers have turned their attention to a "gaffe" by Obama during a speech yesterday in New Mexico:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

The "gaffe" description is making its way around conservative blogs almost as if it were a talking point distributed from the Republican Party or the McCain campaign.

Powerline says, "Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. "

Michelle Malkin: "The Obama gaffe machine rolls on."

Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard: "The gaffes continued this holiday weekend for the media's presidential candidate.

All the gaffe talk leads Red State diarist Moe Lane to ask how liberals feel now after eight years of mocking, and speculating on, the reasons behind President Bush's sometimes subpar oratory skills.

In both my recent interviews and private discussions with political insiders and "average citizens," there was a consensus view that a general election between John McCain and Barack Obama would be a respectable and mature campaign that would be good for America regardless of who won. Both have been viewed as transcendent figures who are above the divisive and shallow politics that have dominated Washington since the early 90's.

The most hopeful of such views was probably espoused in Andrew Sullivan's widely read "Goodbye to All That," Atlantic Monthly feature on Obama. Well, so much for that notion. Instead, get ready for another nasty, juvenile and mostly shallow campaign in what remains the most important* election at least since 1980.

Today, we have liberal bloggers accusing McCain of temper problems for his reaction to Obama's criticism of McCain voting against a bill on veterans benefits. And that comes after weeks of ugly displays from both candidates and their campaigns.

Obama's prior shallow moves: Accusing McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years and of being the heir to a third Bush term. When Sidney Blumenthal calls it a low blow, that's harsh.

McCain's prior shallow moves: Accusing Obama of being endorsed by Hamas and diminishing the threat posed by Iran. If McCain truly is a foreign policy expert, he should know better.

Is this the "hopeful" and "honorable" campaign we have to look forward to?

* Most important without hindsight, of course. After all, the 2000 election was widely considered inconsequential and we see how accurate that assessment was.

The Clinton and Obama mouthpieces both tell Talking Points Memo that CNN's report about formal talks over Hillary Clinton as a potential vice presidential nominee are "100% false." 

A web video from Al Jazeera is making the rounds on the liberal blogosphere this morning, most prominently over at Daily Kos. The report comes from Kentucky and features a number of candid interviews with white voters who acknowledge race was the determining factor in their vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. It's a sad and somewhat shocking display, and I'm not just talking about the shot of people auctioning off a can of Manwich:







Kos also links to the Too Sense blog, who provides a little more background on the racial tensions, which appear to deviate somewhat from the common understanding of racism/racial tensions:

After emancipation, coal mining companies sought an advantage over unions by hiring former slaves as scabs since, the unions were racist, wouldn't allow blacks as members. The companies didn't have to fulfill many obligations to this new, unorganized labor force, and a lot of white miners lost their jobs. So it actually makes sense that people would see race relations as a question of pure exploitation; with one side dominating the other. That's the history of the region. 

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had very different interpretations of what last night's results in Kentucky and Oregon mean. Both sent emails last night to their respective supporters declaring various levels of "victory."

From the Clinton email, entitled, "Every time we win,":

We showed America that the voters know what the "experts" will never understand -- that in our great democracy, elections are about more than candidates running, pundits commenting, or ads blaring.

They're about every one of us having his or her say about the path we choose as a nation. The people of Kentucky have declared that this race isn't over yet, and I'm listening to them -- and to you.

And from Obama's "What we just achieved," :

The polls are closed in Kentucky and votes are being counted in Oregon, and it's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.

We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process.

Conservative and liberal bloggers are sparring over McCain and Obama's recent comments about Iran. Obama sparked the ire of McCain and Republicans in general by saying of Iran:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

McCain responded by saying that Obama's comments show a lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience needed in a president. Michelle Malkin called Obama the "epitome of a 9/10 Democrat," declaring:

Barack Obama complains that no one wants to talk about the 'issues.' Well, his abject ignorance of warfare in the 21st century is an issue that can't be emphasized enough. And the right side of the blogosphere has been all over it.

So, who's right here? Obama is certainly guilty of downplaying the Iranian threat and has even taken some mild criticism from liberal bloggers. But he's also factually accurate in what should be a fairly obvious statement that the Soviet Union was a vastly larger threat to the United States than Iran, as TPM's Josh Marshall explained:

This point is implicit in much of the current paranoid saber-rattling over the Middle East. But does John McCain really think that the threat posed by Iran is equal to that the United States faced from the Soviet Union -- the world's greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle with the US? 

If all goes as planned, and Hillary Clinton wins by a substantial margin in Kentucky, while Barack Obama wins Oregon by a smaller margin, will anything have changed? Not much, according to most bloggers. There's a good chance Obama will have claimed a majority of pledged delegates, but liberals bloggers have focused themselves on taking down Clinton's popular vote theories, and downplaying expectations for tonight's results.

Talk Left's Jeralyn asks:

June 3 isn't here yet. Hillary has promised to stay in the race until then. Realistically, after tonight, the only big win she may get is Puerto Rico. Here's a question for her supporters: Do you think Hillary should stay in the race after June 3?

In large part, the netroots have turned their attention to John McCain and his continued perceived missteps about Iran, Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

As an Oregon native, I've been more than a little cynical about the endless parade of stories this week about Obama's 75,000 person rally on the Portland waterfront this past weekend. 75,000 is a lot of people, sure. And it's more than any other candidate will get in any other city this cycle. But let's put this in a bit of context. Portlanders love to come out for rallies like this.

For example: 50,000 people showed up at the same spot in 2004 for John Kerry. In other words, the charismatic and highly regarded Obama drew 50% more spectators than the lukewarm Kerry.  Even Ralph Nader, yes, Ralph Nader, drew 10,000 people to a Portland rally in 2000 at the Memorial Coliseum.

Liberal bloggers have been very aggressive promotion this op-ed, and the accompanying video, from former Clinton administration spokesman James P. Rubin. In his op-ed, Rubin claims John McCain previously endorsed holding negotiations with Hamas. If true, that would make McCain look hypocritical, after his campaign has recently attacked Barack Obama for what they say is his willingness to do the same.  

However, watching the actual video and reading the transcript reveals that McCain made no such promise to negotiation with Hamas. The key quote, "sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them," is more accurately interpreted as a potential military threat to the organization if they do not comport to the traditional standards of a governing entity:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

The McCain campaign has fired back with a CNN clip from the same day where McCain more clearly outlines the preconditions for engaging with a Hamas-lead government.



McCain's surrogates certainly are justified in crying foul over the characterization of their candidate's views. But they should also be mindful that they have essentially done the same thing to Obama with the focus on him being "endorsed" by the terrorist organization. Negotiations and the question of appeasement have been hot topics in the news lately, and with good reason. Another popular clip making the rounds on the blogosphere this morning is of MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews eviscerating right-wing radio host Kevin James, who fails to understand the historical differences between negotiating with hostile regimes and "appeasing" them.

Earlier I posted on how liberal bloggers have not deviated from their long held position that Barack Obama has effectively won the nomination. Many of those same bloggers are conducting a sobering conversation on how Obama overcomes his apparent electoral weaknesses in the face of Hillary Clinton's continued success in states like West Virginia, even if most analysts don't think the wins really "count."

The "how does Obama win the white vote?" may be the most pressing and practical, but at least of equal value in terms of intellectual curiosity is, "Why hasn't Clinton conceded yet?" The theories range from the benign assumption that she simply wants to ride it out, to conspiratorial notions that she wants to destroy the Democratic Party.

CQ Politics' own David Corn and the Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall both look at the possibility that Clinton is staying in the race to best set herself up for a 2012 run should Obama lose to John McCain.

The thing I've been wondering is, are there really Clinton supporters who, thinking rationally, would support a scenario in which she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, but "wins" the nomination by capturing a necessary amount of superdelegates?

Taylor Marsh argues for just such a scenario:

It's time for superdelegates to think long and hard about who can win in November. Clinton keeps winning states Democrats need against John McCain. Obama's way to victory in November depends on reinventing the electoral map. It's risky at best.

Jerome Armstrong, a Clinton supporter, doesn't quite call on superdelegates to overturn the election, but does seem to make a VP argument by highlighting Obama's "serious problem" with voters:

Obama may not even break 30 percent, despite being practically anointed with the nomination?!?! Look, this is a partisan blog. Nearly everyone will come around to supporting the nominee here, but if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless (which may not be a bad thing considering).

While much of the media declared Barack Obama the presumptive Democratic nominee after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, progressive bloggers have been declaring the death of Hillary Clinton's campaign for two months. As Liberal Values' Ron Chusid says today:

Clinton's only remaining strategy is to keep trying to move the goal posts, but the referees from the DNC and the superdelegates are not buying it.

Nonetheless, her blowout win last night in West Virginia has much of the media once again discussing far-fetched scenarios in which Clinton takes the nomination. However, bloggers remain convinced the race is over, but are looking forward to how Obama can close what they see as his very real problems with white, "working class," voters. After all, one thing that seems lost in the post-primary analysis is that not only did Clinton hold her projected 30-point victory, she actually built on it. That's both out of character based on past primary victories and especially troubling for Obama supporters that it comes a week after their candidate was all-but-anointed the nominee.

Looking at how Obama has faired with white voters in past primary states, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat finds:

West Virginia is not an anomaly. Obama's white working class problem is EAST of the Mississippi. It is not just Appalachia. It MUST be addressed. Calling West Virginia names is not going to solve the problem.

Obama has already begun to address this weakness. While Clinton was giving her West Virginia victory speech, Obama was in Missouri talking to swing state voters. The Moderate Voice notices this trend and advises:

The bottom line: it is an Obama vulnerability and if the Obama team is smart they'll make wooing blue collar workers an ongoing project. It is a weaknesss the GOP has most assuredly noticed.

Delivering his North Carolina victory speech, Obama addressed the exit polls showing that both his and Clinton's supporters would be "dissatisfied" voting for the other candidate in the general election should their preferred Democrat lose.

While acknowledging that there have been "bruised feelings on both sides," Obama told the cheering crowd, "I am here to tell you I don’t believe it."

That was followed by lofty language declaring the election is not about him, Clinton, or John McCain. However, Obama quickly noted that a McCain victory would be allowing him to "serve George Bush's third term."

With North Carolina already called for Obama, the media is so far treating tonight's primaries as a victory placing Obama even closer to an official clinch of the Democratic Party's nomination. The lingering question has been whether the extended primary season reveals Obama to be a flawed and weakened candidate heading into the general election. But exit polling from both Indiana and North Carolina show that the potential fallout may be the animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters.

Marc Ambinder:

Forget the horse race numbers for a moment: if the surveys are accurate, the polarization within the Democratic Party has reached critical levels.

Ambinder's analysis shows that nearly 60 percent of Obama supporters in Indiana says they would be "dissatisfied" if Clinton is the nominee, while "nearly two thirds" of Clinton supporters say the same thing about Obama.

The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb:

Sounds to me like a best case scenario for McCain. Hillary probably isn't going to win this thing, and if she were to pull it off there's not much evidence that McCain could beat her in the fall. Right now she outpolls Obama across the board. So the hope is that the Democratic party becomes so divided that even in an atrocious year, a moderate and likable John McCain can steal the election. A split tonight pours $4.00 a gallon gasoline on that fire.

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers has an interesting post on Hillary Clinton's superior campaign work ethic compared to Barack Obama. Bowers is an Obama supporter, but worries about the gap in their tally of scheduled events before Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina:

While Obama is heavily outspending Clinton on paid media, the Clinton campaign is holding far more events on the ground. The differences in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina are particularly stark, with Clinton holding 181 campaign events in those three states, compared to 80 events for Obama. And the gap appears to keep getting larger.

More campaign events for Clinton doesn't necessarily translate into traction for her campaign, especially if Obama's events are more effective, even if they are less frequent. Nonetheless, Clinton appears to be making a greater effort to seize her apparent "momentum" than Obama is making to cease his "downturn" in the polls and perception. More Bowers:

Stats like these make me wonder if Obama's massive activist corps seems to be working harder than Obama. As an Obama supporter, I have to say that I am not in the least bit happy with these numbers. If he wants to put Clinton away, the campaign needs to start holding a lot more events in upcoming primary states.

Note: Hillary Clinton herself has more events than Barack Obama himself. It is not all Bill Clinton, and some of the Obama events are Michelle Obama. Hillary Clinton is doing more events than OBama in key states. If you think that  ins't a problemn, fine. If you think that is a problem, get annoyed at the Obama campaign, not me.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999, has switched his allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Andrew said he reached the decision without any lobbying from the Obama campaign. He had originally endorsed Clinton back in November 2007, the same day she formally announced her candidacy. Now, not only is Andrew supporting Obama, he's contacting the superdelegates he knows and encouraging them to do the same:

Andrew has also penned a letter to other surrogates urging them to rally behind Obama and end the nomination battle quickly. Andrew writes “a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain,” according to AP.

Liberal Values' Ron Chusid says:

Today’s pick up for Clinton might be one of the more damaging ones, possibly shifting the momentum back in Obama’s favor in time for next week’s vote.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh says Andrew and other Obama surrogates are trying to stop the people's will:

What a guy. Clinton "attack dogs." Yeah, that helps. No argument in favor of Obama, just that poor Joe is a-fwaid that if we continue to let the people decide things will get too negative, while making sure it is. So, STOP THE VOTING is the signal. Stop the fight for who's the best candidate to win in November, even though Obama hasn't closed the deal, and Clinton is gaining. No wonder we lose presidential elections.

UPDATE: Andrew discusses his switch in a blog up over at the Huffington Post.

Most polls show Hillary Clinton holding onto a slim advantage in Indiana's upcoming primary, and Barack Obama maintaining a double-digit lead in North Carolina. But a new Insiders Advantage poll now shows Clinton leading Obama by two points in North Carolina. The results do come with major caveats: her lead is within the poll's margin of error and it could be an anomaly, as even Insider Advantage polls from earlier this week show Obama with a double-digit lead. Nonetheless, what happens if Clinton does win both primaries next Tuesday? She is still unlikely to significantly narrow the pledged delegate gap, but two surprising victories would almost certainly help her with super delegates, or at least stop the bleeding. But her real argument then effectively becomes the increasing likelihood that she wins the popular vote and can add in the far less convincing point that the states she's won equate to more electoral college votes in a general election.

Marc Ambinder pours some cold water on the poll's findings:

AN OBVIOUS question about the Insider Advantage numbers is that Obama receives only 65% of the black vote in the sample; also, blacks tend to make up about 40% of the SC electorate - they're 37% of the early voters -- and yet they're 25% of the electorate in the IA poll.

TPM's Eric Kleefeld says the numbers are "demonstrating just how badly the latest controversies have hurt Barack Obama."

Conservatives bloggers have been rooting for Clinton lately and are jumping on the poll results. Ed Morrissey:

If Obama cannot hold North Carolina, it will likely have superdelegates questioning whether the damage has gone too deep for recovery

And The American Spectator's Philip Klein:

[I]f he were to lose Indiana and win North Carolina just narrowly, it would really cement doubts about his canidacy. And if somehow he manages to lose in both states, he could actually see ths nomination slip away.

Barack Obama held a 2pm press conference today to directly respond to Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club address and his remarks on Sunday before the Detroit NAACP. As chronicled here, Obama distanced himself from Wright to a greater extent than he has in the past, saying Wright's remarks may have done "great damage" to their relationship:

In some ways, the things Wright said yesterday directly contradict my life, issues, service, what I’ve said in my books, in my convention speech, announcement for president, everything I’ve said on the campaign trail.

Talk Left's Jeralyn says Obama is finally doing what many have encouraged: "He's throwing Wright under the bus."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner:

I’m not sure what more Obama could say, to be honest. He’ll be tarred somewhat for having spent 20 years in Wright’s congregation and touting him so heavily as his mentor. But this should stop the bleeding.

TPM's Greg Sargent:

The comments -- combined with the fact that he's devoting today's presser to Wright damage control -- underscore the degree to which the Obama campaign recognizes that Wright's sudden reappearance in the campaign has the potential to do him serious harm at a moment when a confluence of events are buffeting his candidacy.

But Ann Althouse says Obama may not have gone far enough.

Video below:

Bob Herbert says Jeremiah Wright has come to "bury" Obama, but offers this bit of truth about how Obama found himself the victim of Wright's ego tirade to begin with:

This whole story is about Senator Obama’s run for the White House and absolutely nothing else. Barack Obama went to Rev. Wright’s church as a young man and was blessed with the Christian bona fides that would be absolutely essential for a high-profile political career.

I don't think this is what Herbert meant, but doesn't that mean on at least some level Obama is getting what he deserves? Or, that he's reaping what he's sewn, to employ some contextual language. But Herbert says the greater danger to Obama's candidacy is that supporters will view this episode as evidence he just isn't tough enough to be president. Commentary's Jennifer Rubin says Obama missed his chance to effectively break with Wright:

There is evidently nothing Wright can say that would cause Obama to break, once and for all, with him. And no explanation comes to mind to help us understand how Wright concealed his world view from Obama for so long.

Meanwhile, Digby says the media, citing Hardball host Chris Matthews in particular, is making an unfair connection between Wright and Obama:

I completely agree that this is an attempt to silence liberal voices and make them an automatic political problem. That's certainly what we saw yesterday.

Yesterday, the conservative and liberal corners of the blogosphere weighed in on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speeches before the Detroit NAACP, and later, the National Press Club. Today, the mainstream columnists and pundits weigh in with their takes on how damaging the Wright fallout will be to Barack Obama both in the primary and, presumably, general election. And now, bloggers are giving their takes to the media interpretations of Wright's remarks.

Eugene Robinson says he's "had it" with Wright:

The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree.

National Review's Greg Pollowitz says Robinson and other "pundits on the left" defended Wright a few weeks ago and have enabled the same speeches they are now decrying:

In a way, it's actually the fault of pundits/columnists like Eugene Robinson, Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann that Wright is still anissue. They tried to spin the Wright problem as a distraction rather than face the reality that his ranting would be a factor for voters.

The New York Daily News' Errol Lewis discovers that the woman responsible for organizing Wright's Press Club talk, Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, is actually a Hillary Clinton supporters. He found several comments on her personal blog praising Clinton and criticizing elements of Obama's campaign:

I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

The reaction from liberal bloggers and columnists to Rev. Jeremiah's remarks to the Detroit NAACP and this morning's speech at the National Press Club has been more muted than that of conservative bloggers. That certainly makes sense, as both ends of the blogosphere divide tend to largely ignore debate of their own "problems," while seeking to highlight the missteps and challenges of their ideological opposition. That said, some progressive and center-left voices are speaking out today and their reaction hasn't been much more cheery than that of the blogging right.

Talk Left's Jeralyn says:

At this point, I'd say the question is not whether, but how much, Wright is hurting Obama's campaign.

Time columnist Joe Klein has a love/hate relationship with liberal bloggers, even if he's far closer to their world view than those on the right. Klein says Wright is now a defacto political enemy of Obama:

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.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh doesn't revel in the troubles Wright is causing Obama. Instead, she sees deep troubles facing the likely Democratic nominee:

If Reverend Wright cared at all about the man he has mentored spiritually he wouldn't be up front and center giving speeches that insult people like John F. Kennedy.

The conservative blogosphere is engulfed this morning analyzing new comments from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said during a Detroit NAACP dinner that white brains and black brains think differently.

Michelle Malkin is leading the discussion with video of Wright's speech. She notes of Wright's comments:

If he’s this comfortable mocking black/white differences in front of media cameras, I can only imagine what he says in private to his faithful black liberation ideology adherents.

National Review's Victor Davis Hanson calls the speech and it's treatment by the media a sign of "Orwellian times," and says:

In short, Wright's speech on black-right brainers, white-left brainers — replete with bogus stereotypes and crude voice imitations — was about as racist as they come and at one time antithetical to what the NAACP was once all about. Again, the Obama campaign and its appendages have set back racial relations a generation. Just ten years ago, any candidate, black or white, would have rejected Wright making a speech about genetic differences in respective black and white brains. Now it's given to civil rights organizations by the possible next President's pastor and spiritual advisor — and done to wild applause for an organization founded on the idea that we are innately the same, while being gushed over by ignorant "commentators."

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall has a popular post today arguing that the media have switched their allegiances from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton:

While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.

While The Washington Post runs an op-ed from Clinton strategist Geoff Garin arguing that Clinton has been unfairly labeled by the media as running a more negative campaign than Obama. So, who is right?

The right answer might be that neither are entirely correct. Overall, the press does seem to be turning a more critical eye towards Obama, but that does not naturally equate into "positive" coverage for Clinton. From a purely Machiavellian view, it's fair to say that any negative coverage of Obama is a plus for Clinton, but it's not accurate to say the media has jumped ship to Clinton. Liberal and independent voices have long been saying that the media were deeply flawed in their largely unquestioning approach to President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War. But many of those same journalists have, until recently, shown a comparable "ignorance is bliss" approach to Obama. The real complaint should be about journalists willfully taking sides without a foundation of empirical data.

Less time needs to be spent on Garin's complaint. Aside from Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton has run the most negative campaign of the primary season. It's true that Obama's operation has done its share of negative campaigning, but that does not mean it has been as negative as Clinton's. In this case, where the public does in fact perceive Clinton as having run the more negative campaign, we can refer to Arnold Schwarzenegger's own prior campaign acknowledgment that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Blogger reactions to both posts after the jump...

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, has given his first interview since his controversial sermons raised questions about Obama's patriotism and let to a highly publicized speech on race in America. The interview is with liberal PBS commentator Bill Moyers and should prove friendly turf for Wright. Some excerpts of the interview were released today in which Wright says his words were "twisted" and taken out of context. That's leading most of the blog discussion right now, but what I found most interesting were his comments on how Obama handled the controversy. He sounds, in a word, bitter:

“He’s a politician, I’m a pastor,” he said. “We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds.”

He added, “I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.”

Marc Ambinder agrees that the "most damaging" thing Wright has to say may be that Obama says things because he's a politician.

Although the conservative Hot Air blog defends Wright on the grounds that he may have simply been differentiating his and Obama's points of view:

He may simply be trying to communicate that they come at these issues from different angles and have honest differences of opinion. The idea of a politician saying “what he has to say” makes it sound like an accusation of pandering, but it needn’t be: He refers to himself saying “what he has to say” as a pastor, too. That is, he may be pointing to their differing professions and audiences as proof of their philosophical differences, one set of beliefs leading down one career path and another leading down another one (”two different worlds”).

While most analysts agree that Barack Obama will eventually secure his party's presidential nomination, a heated discussion is now taking place in the blogosphere as to whether or not he is still the strongest candidate to go up against Hillary Clinton. Pro-Clinton bloggers are questioning Obama's ability to "close the deal," while conservative bloggers are hoping, and believing, that Obama's recent struggles have revealed him to be a "new Adlai Stevenson" who is popular with the base, but can't win a general election.

Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh questions whether Obama has the will to capture the nomination:

The biggest problem Obama has is that he just doesn't seem a tough enough campaigner to close it out. Sure, he can send around negative mailers and have his talking heads impugn Clinton in conference calls, which he does. But when it comes to weighing in himself, it doesn't seem he likes to have his own signature on the slime he's moving.

National Review's Mark Steyn calls Obama a "novelty candidate" and says Democratic superdelegates have no good option:

There are no good choices for superdelegates right now. But, if you survey the landscape via the pages of the Times, the Hillary option looks like it comes with more potential for blowback. The media's over-glamorization of and over-investment in a weak novelty candidate will influence more calculations than the grim demographic arithmetic of Pennsylvania.

Not surprisingly, a Wall Street Journal op-ed from Karl Rove in which he outlines what he sees as Obama's weaknesses as a candidate is drawing huge blogger reactions. In Rove's piece he concludes:

Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.

Reaction to the Rove piece after the jump...

Liberal bloggers often decry the "advice" of their conservative counterparts, sometimes making accusations of "concern trolls" lurking within their ranks. Today, conservative bloggers are enjoying the fact that the Democratic nomination battle will continue at least another two weeks. And sure enough, some of them are offering their own advice and takes concerning the left's ongoing fight.

NRO's Lisa Schiffren:

Finally — by what reckoning has this primary fight been so nasty? So dirty? So mean? We have all seen much worse.  If anything, until this past month the questions and the charges have been much too dainty. Barack Obama is a stranger to most of the electorate. It is just fine to question any and all of his associations and political views. Failure to do so is malfeasance; failure to highlight his weaknesses as a leader would be some kind of suicide pact for an opponent.

Ed Morrissey says Clinton's first post-victory interview with NBC's "Today" show was "almost pitch-perfect," including a rhetorical point stating that Clinton leads in the popular vote, if the Michigan and Florida primary votes are counted:

It’s almost a pitch-perfect response. She does sound an odd note by blaming Obama for running negative ads after the debate in almost the same breath in which she defends her own advertising as part of the normal electoral process, but her answer to the Gray Lady has the elegance of the obvious. If people keep voting for her more than they do for Obama, why should she stop?

And Red State diarist Dan McLaughlin shows a vote total chart of the past 60 days showing Clinton with 4,261,708 votes to 3,821,668 votes for Obama, a difference of 440,040 votes in Clinton's favor:

Obama can probably still run out the clock, but he's going to end with the worst run-up to the convention since Gerald Ford in 1976. And the real finish line, of course, is in November.

We're still waiting for actual election results, but exit polling is showing that the "negative" campaigning from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has hurt their standings with voters. While more respondents blame Clinton for the negative tone, it appears to have "tarnished" both candidates, at least according to ABC.

The Donkelphant blog says the negative attacks likely hurt Clinton more in the eyes of PA voters, but since the same data shows most of them made up their minds a week ago, it may not actually affect tonight's results:

It’s interesting that a lot of people decided who they’d vote for a long time ago, but given the recent polls from PA doesn’t this bode well for Hillary despite the perceptions of these negative attacks?

Everyone from the Drudge Report to traditional polling operations are offering their takes on where Pennsylvania voters stand the day before the polls open in the crucial primary state. 

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down the demographics samples in the polls to help explain the differences. In short, the polls have given different statistical weight to how many African-Americans will vote in the primary and how the white vote is breaking down.

Over at Philly.com, Will Bunch says predictions are a bad idea, but adds:

That said, there's one thing that seems impossible to avoid about 32 hours before the polls FINALLY close here in Pa. And that is this, that there is virtually no way that Barack Obama can win here. I don't know the exact margin of victory, but a Hillary Clinton triumph seems certain. 

Former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has endorsed Barack Obama on his blog:

My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

Much to his credit, Reich keeps the value of such endorsements in perspective in his opening statement:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares.

Nonetheless,having another longtime Clinton associate break ranks to endorse Obama is certainly not good news for Hillary Clinton and is fueling talk that Clinton should exit the race sooner than later. Clinton supporter Jerome Armstrong takes offense to a growing thread on liberal blogs that sees them accusing Clinton of running her campaign like a "Republican":

As a political operative, it blows my mind that people like Reich are now trying to define tactics as being either Republican or Democrat. And worse, that the measure is whether it offends the style of people like Reich. This kind of advice that leads to the wilderness.

Bloggers are speculating as to whether this YouTube video of Barack Obama speaking at a Raleigh, N.C. event shows the senator giving Hillary Clinton "the finger," when discussing Washington-style politics.

From the L.A. Times blog:

Watch the video right then. The presidential candidate raises his right hand to seemingly scratch his cheek. He doesn't use his whole hand though. Just one finger. Briefly. A couple of strokes. He pauses. He smiles slyly as the crowd begins to mumble and then he tries, somewhat distracted, to continue his remarks, smiling as the buzz spreads through the crowd. He'll no doubt deny it later, but that mischievous smile seems to confirm plenty. And the crowd sure sees something.

Blogger reaction after the jump...

During last night's Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama was asked about his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Obama responded by comparing Ayers to his Senate colleague, and friend, Tom Coburn:

The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried about abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements?

The comparison has drawn understandable objections from a number of conservative bloggers. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey put it thusly:

And what was Obama’s response? He compared Ayers to Senator Tom Coburn, who opposes abortion. Of course, Coburn hasn’t bombed abortion clinics, but Obama can’t tell the difference between a Senator and a terrorist. That won’t help him in Middle America either, and Coburn may have a few words for Obama after this night.

Although that does not appear to be the case. As a call to Dr. Coburn's office by CQPolitics reveals, neither the senator nor his press staff are willing to publicly comment on Obama's comparison.

However, the Obama campaign is commenting. On their website, the campaign has listed a "fact check" on Obama's relationship with Ayers. The page seeks to note that Obama was 8 when the Weathermen were active and posts several clips downplaying the relationship between the two men:

Noam Scheiber Of TNR: "I Don't See Evidence Of Any Relationship" Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, "Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don't see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I'm not saying they couldn't have been casual friends;

However, a CQPolitics passes along this link toa  November 4, 1997 University of Chicago panel featuring, Ayers and Obama.

Liberal bloggers appear largely unimpressed with last night's Democratic debate hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. The Huffington Post even went so far as to post video of the crowd heckling Gibson as he segued into a commercial break. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are focusing their criticism on Barack Obama, whom they say dodged answers on subjects like gun control and taxes. Whether or not Obama was dodging or giving evasive answers, it's clear this is the emerging attack line against Obama: "He's not who you think he is," whether it's discussing religion, elitism, or the actual issues.

The American Prospect's Sam Boyd:

Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.

Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.

The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan says Obama is not coming clean about his views on gun control. 

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau reviews the exchange between Obama and Gibson on the Capital Gains Tax and asks for more clarification:

So which is it, Barack?  Is the purpose of taxation so that the government can collect money, or is it to impose some kind of collectivist notion of "fairness"?  We need some clarification, please.

Probably safe to file this under "endorsements don't matter." Over at his website, Bruce Springsteen endorsed Barack Obama and defended him against charges of elitism:

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams From My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

The endorsement is getting plenty of coverage today from a media that has long appeared disproportionately obsessed with the classic rocker. The Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen also appears to be a Springsteen fan, but offers this perhaps unintentional anecdote about "The Boss'" ability to move actual voters:

Springsteen made his first foray into presidential politics by performing at events for 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. He pulled huge crowds to hear Kerry speak in Wisconsin, Ohio and other battleground states days before Kerry’s defeat.

Stephen Bainbridge adds:

Look, I like Springsteen. He’s right up there with Eric Clapton and The Who at the top of my playlist. But I’m not going to take political advice from him. It’s especially amusing that Springsteen would be trying to lend working class credibility to Obama when Springsteen is now one of the richest celebrities in music

Hot Air humorously notes that Barack Obama has gone back to wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. They get it perfectly right here: Noting the foolishness in the "controversy's" origins, and having a laugh at its predictable return:

I lost track of this very stupid story after the initial dust-up last October. Evidently a disabled vet handed it to him at this morning’s speech, thereby magically ridding it of the Iraq cooties that had rendered it unfit to grace the chest of the Messiah until today. Read this prescient column from the AJC a few weeks ago predicting that the pin would soon reemerge in the wake of Wright’s “chickens coming home to roost” clip entering near-permanent rotation on cable news.

Andrew Sullivan says that maybe it's only the media elites who think it matters that Barack Obama might be an elitist. He just may be right. But, just to be clear: A senior editor with the Atlantic Monthly, with two Harvard degrees, is decrying the elitism of the upper-crust media's observations on Barack Obama's perceived elitism:

I'm beginning to suspect that the only segment left in America that genuinely feels that elitism is a problem for Obama are ... the elites. How funny is that?

Of course, not everyone thinks it's so bad to be an elitist.

Conservative bloggers believe they have found another opening to attack Barack Obama as being out of touch with average Americans. It's still unclear as to whether or not Obama's small town America comments are hurting him electorally, but it's clear Republicans are embracing the attack line now in advance of a likely general election matchup against Obama. There's even a new Facebook group called "Barack Obama is an elitist," asking people to change their profile pictures to this:




WSJ.com columnist John Fund says Barack Obama represents a recurring theme in Democratic presidential nominees: a "rookie" candidate whom voters adore in the primary season but who doesn't hold up under the intense scrutiny of a general election:

With 81% of voters telling pollsters the country is on the "wrong track," no one disputes Democrats can win in November. Still, it should be a matter of concern to them that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama currently trail John McCain in general-election matchups. Democrats would be wise to have more debates and sharper exchanges in the remaining primaries. It may help minimize the surprises they are likely to encounter this fall.

Other conservatives are jumping on the Obama "elitist" meme as well, with George Will making unfavorable comparisons between Obama and Adlai Stevenson. Which leads Michelle Malkin to joke:

It’s a good little review of late-twentieth-century liberal intellectuals, but dude: George Will is now calling him a snob.

Although Commentary's Jennifer Rubin sees the tactic posing a potentially big risk for Hillary Clinton:

With Snob-gate dominating the news cycle, Clinton now runs a risk. Should she fail to win by a comfortable margin after taking her best shot in the best possible news environment, Obama will claim to have survived the final desperate attack of a dying campaign.

Conservative and liberal bloggers remain almost singularly focused today on Barack Obama's "bitter" comments about American small towns and whether those comments should be interpreted as "elitist" or simply poorly constructed, but nonetheless accurate.

The biggest blogger reactions are to the new Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton holding a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down recent polls and comes away predicting a sizable Clinton victory.

As to whether Obama's comments have hurt him in the state, or are being ignored by voters, Todd Beeton says:

My suspicion is that the truth is somewhere in between, but the fact is, even before the current controversy, Clinton was re-asserting herself in the state. Of course, what we've learned this primary season is that 1 week is an eternity, so if Obama's comments did hurt him in the state, he certainly has plenty of time to reverse it.

Below the Beltway's Doug Mataconis agrees:

With a week to go before the voting actually begins, and given how this race has gone from the beginning, how this will turn out is anyone’s guess.

Three and a half hours after John McCain's campaign manager sent out an online fundraising email calling Barack Obama "elitist," Obama's campaign manager has sent out a fundraising email of his own. Entitled, "Who's Out of Touch?" the solicitation from campaign manager David Plouffe seeks to highlight Obama's humble upbringing, while providing several links to the campaign's online fundraising page:

Barack Obama's own life and story are reflected in the character of this grassroots campaign. He was raised by a single mother with help from his grandparents. He has a family he loves, not long ago finished paying off his student loans, and he's doing what he can to help change this country.

Meanwhile, John Cole says the Clinton campaign's effort to paint Obama as elitist are not working:

So, in case you are keeping score, yes, American voters are dumb enough to vote for Bush twice (and I include myself in that number, sadly). They are not, however, dumb enough to sit around and listen to an Ivy League educated lawyer who has spent all but two of the last 40 years living in a Governor’s mansion, the White House, and a NY mansion and who made 110 million over the past six years call someone else elitist.

On the same day Democrats and bloggers are accusing the McCain campaign of violating campaign finance laws, John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, has sent out an email to supporters focusing on Barack Obama's comments over the weekend about "bitter" voters in small town America. The email at first appears to simply contrast McCain's views with Obama's, but near the end goes into the online fundraising pitch:

If Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee in the general election, the American people will have a clear choice between two different visions - Senator Obama's liberal, elitist philosophy and John McCain's faith in the small town values that continue to make America great. John McCain will not forget them or write them off. Neither should Barack Obama.

We are up against a large fundraising hurdle if Barack Obama is the nominee and we need your help now. Even before the general election begins, the differences are clear, we must do everything we can to make sure these beliefs don't make it into the White House.

Bill Kristol uses his New York Times column today to go after Barack Obama's recent comments about small town America. Kristol formulates what has quickly become a new, conservative argument against Obama: that he is out of touch and does not respect "real," i.e. conservative, Americans:

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

On the other far end of the argument, Andrew Sullivan sprinkles a Hitler reference ("Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler.") into his Kristol rebuttal, but does make a salient point about someone not of a particular faith criticizing the practices of someone who does belong to the faith in question:

A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already. And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?

The JustOneMinute blog agrees with Kristol's belief that Obama's statements have "Marxist roots."

But most liberal blogs, like Shakesville, are rallying to Obama's defense. Or, at least, going after Kristol for going after him.

However, more than half of Americans polled say they disagree with Obama's statement.

Marc Ambinder places Joe Biden on the shortlist for Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate choices. The rationale:

Just to be provocative, I'll throw out Joe Biden's name. His hidden asset is his connection with white, working class voters. His obvious asset is his foreign policy experience.

For what it's worth, Condoleezza Rice does not make the list of Ambinder's prospective picks for McCain (Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty leads that list).

The Biden suggestion is being met with mixed reactions from liberal bloggers. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum offers a well-thought rationale for why the Biden choice would work.

Once he leaves the cozy confines of a primary where the anti-war base is enough to win, Obama is going to enter the chillier territory of a general election where he'll need to draw a bunch of votes from the ranks of people who once supported the war. He needs a good way to signal these folks that he doesn't consider them tainted forever by their erstwhile support, and what better way than by choosing a moderately hawkish senator who once favored the war but has since changed his mind?

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias, who incidentally supported the war during its popular beginnings, must never want to be president himself. He says Obama must pick someone who was against the war from the beginning:

But putting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making.

My take: Obama has several good options. Jim Webb offers a great counter-narrative, Hillary Clinton could help unite Democrats (although I think that concern is overrated) and Kansas' Kathleen Sebelius is popular. But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano could be too enticing too pass up. Imagine the negative coverage if John McCain is forced to battle for his home state in an election season where he will already have a tough enough time getting used to being the media's second favorite candidate.

Despite his left-leaning stances on most issues, Barack Obama has had a difficult relationship with the LGBT community. However, he recently sat down for an extended interview with The Advocate to discuss various issues, including the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy. The first question posed to Obama was why he hasn't done more media spots with the "gay press":

I don’t think it’s fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

Andrew Sullivan has become somewhat notorious in the blogosphere for defending Obama on nearly every point of criticism. But gay equality is probably the issue of greatest concern to Sullivan. Instead of addressing the criticisms directly, Sullivan again blames the criticism on the influence of the Clinton's and says Obama's youth may the LGBT's community's greatest asset in an Obama administration:

More pertinent: look at his age. The sooner this country's leadership shifts generations, the more equality gay and lesbian people will have.

Pam's House Blend also gives Obama credit, saying he "speaks frankly" in the interview.


However, Jeff Fecke goes after Obama on the issue in a lengthy post entitled, "No, No, No, No, No."

Quite bluntly, I don't trust you to deliver on LGBT rights. The only thing that has allowed me to support you thus far is that I don't fully trust your opponent on LGBT rights either.

As I mentioned in a post earlier today, a presidential candidate's perceived strengths can often be twisted into a liability over the course of a campaign. Barack Obama has gained a lot of positive traction for conveying the sense that he above the fray of divisive political discourse. However, reporters and some conservative bloggers have been applying more scrutiny to Obama's record lately, including his repeated false statement that John McCain favors 100 years of war in Iraq.

Jake Tapper reports that Obama has been directly challenged on his "twisting" of McCain's words, but has refused to budge:

It is a matter of opinion to say that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” But it is accurate to say that Obama wrote that opinion in his book "The Audacity of Hope," and that he is violating his own stated aspirations. (Audacious indeed.) Because not only has he distorted what McCain said, he is not being honest about having made those distortions.

Air America radio host, and Barack Obama supporter Ed Schultz drew some unwanted attention last Friday when he referred to John McCain as a "warmonger" while providing the opening remarks before an Obama speech.

The Obama campaign distanced itself from the comments and the McCain camp accepted their rebuttal, but Schultz stood by his comments in an interview with CNN:

"Labeling a candidate is not being disrespectful," Schultz told CNN host John Roberts. McCain's policies, Schultz said, "fit the description, there's no question about that. ... John McCain has no end game in Iraq. ... (He) is saber rattling with Iran. ... The man is a warmonger."

It's a plus for the Obama campaign in that conservative critics cannot use this as another example of Obama preaching about a new style of politics, but practicing traditional mudslinging. At the same time, some liberal bloggers are happy to see the bare knuckles insults coming from an Obama surrogate.

TPM's Eric Kleefeld says Schultz's comments are "a sign that the rhetorical volleys have only just started for the general election campaign."

While Ed at the Say Anything blog says:

I’ve got to think that the Democrats are ticked at Schultz for allowing their big event (two Presidential candidates visiting North Dakota is no small feat) to devolve into a controversy over a petty, small-minded insult.

ABC's Jake Tapper is leading the blog traffic discussion right now with the revelation that he smelled cigarettes on Barack Obama several months ago and his campaign lied about it. But does it matter? Even some conservative bloggers are defending Obama, after Tapper said this:

It's not a big deal in the scheme of things -- the war on Iraq, a major economic crisis -- indeed, it's miniscule. Hardly worth mentioning.

Except that I don't like feeling that I wasn't being dealt with honestly. And as much as citizens who are suspect of the media might scoff at such a notion, many of us consider ourselves to be your representatives to help make sure our leaders are telling us the truth, and leading the country down a path we're confident is the right one. (Corny, I know.)

This isn't the only time I've felt that way about the Obama campaign, of course -- its response to the Austan Goolsbee controversy was a profile in dissembling. (Not that Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain or their campaigns are entirely innocent in this area either. Or even that Obama is necessarily the worst offender.)

Liberal Values' Ron Chusid and Wonkette weigh in to defend Obama/mock Tapper as well.

There were two Bill Richardsons during the Democratic primary season: The pragmatic, tax-cutting, Iraq war supporting, gun rights advocate who was successfully re-elected in a swing state, adding to his already impressive resume. And then there was the Richardson who ran for the nomination: abandoning that record in favor of an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq and ditching any previous policy position in the desperate hope of securing a few more votes. Not surprisingly, the strategy did not work. And now comes a report claiming that it was Richardson who argued to the Clintons that Barack Obama was not electable against John MCain.

TPM's Greg Sargent adds:

Now I've got more. A top Hillary adviser confirms this, telling me:

"Bill Richardson repeatedly promised he would not endorse Obama -- and the reason he gave was that Obama wasn't ready -- he couldn't be elected."

TNR's Jason Zengerle says, right or wrong, the Clintons have made this a bigger story than it needs to be:

You'd have thought that the Clinton people would have wanted to downplay the Richardson's endorsement of Obama. And, if they hadn't sqwuaked so much, I bet it would have been a one- or two-day story. But here we are, nearly two weeks after Richardson did the deed, and the press is still talking about it--because the Clintons won't shut up about it. I don't see how this helps Hillary. Seriously, the Clinton people should just let it go.

Red State's Erick Erickson ignores the Richardson flip-flop, but agrees with the view that Obama can't win.

9/11 Commission co-chair (and former Indiana congressman) Lee Hamilton has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Hamilton has been out of office for nearly a decade and was not a statewide-elected lawmaker, so it's doubtful his endorsement will do much to move voters in the state's May 6th primary, where Hillary Clinton leads in most polls. But his endorsement is still significant in that it runs counter to the argument that Obama lacks the foreign policy expertise to be commander-in-chief. In fact, Hamilton specifically cited two of Obama's foreign policy proposals as his reason for making the endorsement:

Hamilton said he agreed with Obama's position on meeting with U.S. adversaries such as the leaders of Iran without conditions. Also, Obama's consideration of unilateral military action against terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, is already U.S. policy, Hamilton said.

Liberal Value's Ron Chusid adds:

Hamilton was on Bill Clinton’s short list to run as Vice President, joining a long list of foreign policy experts who have been tied to Clinton who have endorsed Obama.