MSNBC has had trouble getting people to pay attention to its network for years, usually trailing Fox and CNN in the ratings. But over the past year, as Keith Olbermann was allowed to take a more left-leaning, opinionated approach to the news, the network's ratings have begun to flourish. Now, MSNBC is pulling Olbermann and "Hardball" host Chris Matthews off of their breaking news coverage for the rest of the campaign, replaced by David Gregory. Is MSNBC making a mistake in giving in to conservative pressure? Olbermann really is a pundit and should be identified as such. Although he's a pundit who knows what his station's viewers want. Meanwhile, Chris Matthews has been an anchor of real reporting and analysis at the network for years, even as he's occasionally upset both those on the left and the right.

John Aravosis says the move was especially bad because conservatives don't watch MSNBC:

I'm sure that now that NBC/MSNBC has caved to the Republicans, the GOP will never say another mean thing about the network. Yeah, ask the Democrats how well the "cave just this once and they'll leave us alone" strategy has worked. Not to mention, how many people at the Republican convention do you honestly believe watch NBC or MSNBC? They watch FOX, you morons. We watch NBC and MSNBC. At least we did. You people are idiots.

Glen Greenwald says MSNBC is afraid of the political right:

That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset. It is plainly doing so for ideological, not ratings-based, reasons: namely, it fears doing anything to anger the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right in this country.

The Moderate Voice's Jazz Shaw says Olbermann crossed the ideological line "far more than once too often," but says "he did add more spice to televised political coverage."

Transplanted Texan says the move could be good for Olbermann, but fears the looming presence of Gregory:

If Gregory does well, I imagine we'll see him take over the Meet the Press chair after the election. Shame, I was kind of hoping for Gwen Ifill out of all the realistic options. As for Olbermann, while my opinion of him hasn't fallen quite as far as most other MyDDers, I still applaud the move. Maybe this kick in the pants will help him return to his pre-primary, less pompous, totally awesome form? And Matthews... eh, wish they'd just fire him. "HA!"

Liberal Values' Ron Chusid captures the real dilemma of having pundits as anchors:

Having Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor political coverage was often more interesting than the other networks, but it was, to be mild, journalistically flawed.

John McCain's acceptance speech got off to a rough start tonight. Bloggers from the left and right were in shock as McCain began speaking before a giant, lime green backdrop, reminiscent of the awful stage backing during his universally panned speech after securing the nomination a few months ago.

But as the speech reached its conclusion, McCain found his comfort zone and delivered. He'll never give a speech with the oratory skills of Barack Obama, or even Sarah Palin, but he delivered specific policy proposals and crossover talking points that neither of his more vocally gifted counterparts offered. Like many of McCain's speeches, there was much to like here, but it comes filtered through his awkward delivery and a not always receptive audience.

1. Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:


3. The increasingly-excitable Andrew Sullivan is feeling more reserved:

It made me realize how much I am still fond of this guy. And also clearer about why this is not his moment. The specifics were very vague, and the entire presentation based on biography, nostalgia and a kind of strained, exhausted mildness. His performance at Saddleback was much, much better. He seemed very tired to me.

4. Reason's Tim Cavanaugh has probably the kindest words you'll hear for McCain coming from the apparently Obama-leaning, but certainly anti-McCain publication:

I think. McCain's speech was good, very gracious, moving in parts, and generally serviceable. The roof was blown off the dump last night, I guess. Maybe this was good enough.

5. And finally, from the conventional in convention wisdom, Swampland's Jay Carney:

A mixed performance. The ending worked, though in the hall I doubt anyone could hear him very well as he spoke through the crowd's applause. The final peroration -- "We're Americans. We don't hide from history. We make history" -- was strong stuff.

We now know that Sarah Palin's acceptance speech for the Republican vice presidential nomination was a soaring hit for the Republican base. The obvious question is the same as after her first appearance with John McCain last week: How much does that enthusiasm trickle down ballot and how far before its resonance begins to dissipate?

As someone who grew up far away from the Beltway and any sense of entitlement, I found her most compelling line to be the one that lacked a political component: "Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys." It was such a good line that the AP mentioned it twice in their analysis piece this morning.

We still won't know for a day or two how the rest of America reacted to the speech, and John McCain's own address tonight could change the dynamic once again, for better or for worse. But here are some more quick takes from those following the election closely, starting with TNR's Michael Crowley:

I completely misjudged how negative she would be. Her lines about Obama were brutally cutting and possibly over the top in places. But she's a far better messenger than an angry white man.

Yossarian makes a point I've been arguing since before the primaries began: Do we really want an "average" person to be our next president? None of the candidates are in fact average, but they are going to great pains to make us believe so:

Obama's team spent much of the time during the convention promoting the idea that he's "average". And Palin spent the first third of her speech emphasizing how she's just a regular busy, working mother like so many other people in this country.

My CQ colleagues and I were trying to tabulate off-hand how many, if any, references to George Bush there have been from the main speakers so far. The Economist's Democracy in America blogs tells us the answer is one: from Mitt Romney.

And finally, Andrew Coyne says Palin is the "best natural speechmaker" since Reagan:

Her critics in the media and in the opposition may regret having piled on quite so enthusiastically, and with so little heed for who they hurt -- or angered. Watching the tumultuous, ecstatic reaction in the hall, I was reminded of the famous words of the Admiral Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Sarah Palin delivered a dynamic speech tonight that was heavier on attack lines than any speech from either convention so far. The right is swooning, the left is mocking, but both acknowledge her political prowess.

Daily Kos diarist "georgia10":

With her snarky, amateurish, almost Student Council-like speech, Palin proved today that she can attack like a candidate for vice-president.  And she demonstrated that she can support the top of the ticket like a candidate for vice-president.

National Review's Jonathan Adler on Palin's depth:

I have one thought on the substance.  Including an extended discussion of international energy markets was quite shrewd.  It allowed her to play to one of her strengths -- energy policy -- while simultaneously undercutting concerns about her lack of foreign policy experience. She talked about the significance of foreign production and the geostrategic importance of pipelines with a level of sophistication that few would have anticipated, and it worked.  Had she tried to get into the nitty-gritty of Iraq or Iran, on the other hand, it would have seemed quite contrived.

Matthew Yglesias, from outside the convention floor in St. Paul:

Palin is having a hard time holding the attention of the drunk C-Listers with "limited access" credentials hanging out in the basement. No idea whether or not that's a good proxy for the overall effectiveness of her rhetoric. To my ear, Huckabee blows the rest of the GOP away as an orator.

John Hinderaker of the conservative Powerline blog:

Aspects of the delivery could have been better and the conclusion could have been stronger. But she passed the test, and neutral viewers who tuned in to see whether she seems ready for the Vice-Presidency had to be impressed. Palin showed that she will be effective on the campaign trail and will be a thorn in Barack Obama's side from now until November.

The conservative Anchor Rising blog:

Ahem, after listening to her speech, ladies and gentlemen, I'm betting she is plenty tough enough and most surely ready for primetime.

Both conservative and liberal bloggers are espousing theories today as to whether the traditional media have been biased against Sarah Palin. Howard Kurtz's column today on being grilled by an "absolutely furious"  Steve Schmidt is the most discussed in the blogosphere.

On the left side of the argument, Josh Marshall says reporters and readers are "getting played" by Schmidt, whom he says is confusing personal rumors in the blogosphere with legitimate inquiries into her political associations and experience:

Schmidt, by the way, is one of the most hard-boiled GOP operatives and Rove proteges around. I guess he and his McCain colleagues missed the whole Rev. Wright episode, Clinton impeachment episode and, what, maybe twenty other episodes over recent years.

Joe Klein thinks John McCain is sincerely agitated at the press, but says Schmidt is provoking a media war for "tactical reasons." I think both of Klein's points are probably right. But I disagree with what appears to be Klein's conclusion that a tactical decision disqualifies the merits of the complaint.

On the right, Jennifer Rubin predicts the attacks on Palin will backfire against both the media and Democrats. I think there's a good chance she's right about that, especially with Republicans and some independent voters.

National Review's excellent reporter Jim Geraghty makes a point being argued by several Republican lawmakers today:

In 72 hours, the media has subjected Bristol Palin to more scrutiny than they've given to Barack Obama in two years. Perhaps that's a mild exaggeration. But pretty darn mild.

And the often sound Stephen Bainbridge concludes:

I think this ends up helping McCain. In particular, it may redress some of the enthusiasm deficit. Lots of Republicans who had no fire in their belly for McCain are now seriously pissed off at the media. If McCain sticks by Palin, I may even open my wallet.

John McCain stayed above the fray in his comments about Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate. But conservatives aren't wasting any time taking shots at Biden's record and what he brings to the ticket.

What's interesting is watching the attempts to frame Biden as a traditional liberal who does not bring the foreign policy gravitas that Democrats hope he will. As previously mentioned, I think Biden was the best choice of the VP finalists but not necessarily the best option available overall. However, his liabilities seem relatively small at this point. It's more a question of what positives he actually brings to the ticket, specifically whether he boosts Obama's standing with white, middle-class voters and the majority of voters who see McCain as more trustworthy on foreign policy issues.

Powerline's Scott Johnson says:

I find that at best Biden adds nothing to the Democratic ticket. Rather than adding to Obama's attractions or neutralizing Obama's liabilities, if he does anything, Biden subtracts from Obama's strengths and contributes to his liabilities.

American Power blogs that Biden brings "disastrous foreign policy liabilities" to the ticket.

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X is saying what many informed liberals are thinking, but have been slow to acknowledge: Republicans have essentially "won" the debate over offshore drilling. For Democrats, environmentalists and alternative energy proponents, the real fight is over which version of a comprehensive energy plan becomes law. Kagro X highlights the recent policy shifts by Nancy Pelosi and Mark Udall (thought no mention of Obama's own pivot) and declares:

The floodgates will open because they have to open. There's no way on God's green earth to find veto-proof majorities to re-up that ban, and no bill George W. Bush won't veto to stop it. ... So it's either flip now and do what you can to save face, or stick it out to the bitter end and lose.

Still, there's a potential upside for Democrats: Embrace a truly comprehensive plan and then call the Republicans' bluff. Rather than meekly acknowledging that drilling is one component of energy independence, embrace drilling as as a necessary evil to pry us from the skyrocketing energy costs brought on by two wars and an administration that has so far refused to embrace an all-encompassing plan. Although the realist in me thinks it's far more likely that both sides will continue their respective turf wars. Drilling has been a rare popular issue for Republicans in the current political environment, and Democrats don't want to risk alienating the enviro lobby, or the sincere reservations of many in their own caucus.

UPDATE: The DNC is now sending journalists McCain stress balls shaped like oil drums.

I still think Andrew Sullivan is one of the best political bloggers out there. But I've become more critical of Sullivan recently for engaging in low brow attacks against John McCain, while crying foul when similar low brow attacks are made against Obama.

Nonetheless, I've wondered recently if I was being too hard on Sullivan. Because, on the whole, he's still one of the very best voices in the blogosphere. But when Sullivan's own Atlantic colleague Ross Douthat compares Sullivan to largely discredited conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, there's really something there:

Look, if Andrew thinks the possible "cross in the dirt" fabrication represents a fruitful line of anti-McCain inquiry, he has every right to pursue it. But given my colleague's steady appeals for a more high-minded approach to political argument, I think he should ponder whether this sort of thing might, just possibly, be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In recent months, Sullivan's been fairly criticized/teased for his unfailing support of Barack Obama. On the whole, that's ok in my book, because we haven't seen Sullivan contradict his core principles of favoring restrained government and the importance of self-doubt in conservative, intellectual circles. It makes Sullivan all the more interesting as someone who thinks of himself as conservative, but in reality is a social liberal who wants a government with a limited cultural/economic footprint. But here's hoping he doesn't completely cash in the years of credibility he's built across the political divide on an effort to discredit John McCain.

John McCain has earned some points in the media and conservative circles this week for his strong and timely response to the crisis in Georgia. But now, Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili has called on McCain to move his rhetoric from "words to deeds." Of course, there's very little McCain can actually do, unless you believe President Bush would make a major foreign policy decision to benefit his party's presumptive nominee.

Jane Hamsher argues McCain is unfairly being treated more favorably than Democratic lawmakers like Nancy Pelosi, who have previously made efforts and statements on international affairs. Josh Marshall also wonders why McCain is acting like he's president when he's only a candidate, and says McCain's statements may actually be making the problem worse:

It seems like John McCain's foreign policy freelancing may be further complicating the situation in Georgia.

Matthew Yglesias agrees, adding:

The McCain campaign put something out yesterday about crowds cheering in Tblisi when President Shakashvili quoted McCain's statement. I can't read their minds, but it seems very plausible to me that they were cheering because they read this as a call for the United States to take practical steps to help Georgia not as a piece of hollow political sloganeering.

Conservative bloggers have responded quickly to the Edwards affair admission, as is typically the case when a breaking story hurts the other side. But some conservatives are saving their ire for the media as opposed to Democrats in general.

Byron York at NRO writes:

The question now that Edwards has admitted the Rielle Hunter affair is whether the big media outlets that ignored the story will now report it.  If it wasn't news because Edwards is finished on the national political stage, why would it be news now?  If it wasn't news because it would be painful for Edwards' ailing wife, why would it be news now?  If it wasn't news because it was "tabloid trash," in Edwards' words, why would it be news now?

Also, expect some word soon from Mickey Kaus, who kept pushing for the media to cover this story in a post that has been highly regarded by both the left and right.

Allahpundit makes a similar point as in my earlier post, asking:

If the affair ended so long ago that he couldn't be the father of a child born in February of this year, what's he doing sneaking out to a hotel late at night to visit his old girlfriend?

Other conservative blogger responses on the topic: Red State, John Tabin, Michelle Malkin

Although the news of John Edwards admitting to lying about his affair with Rielle Hunter is still breaking, blogs have the advantage of instantaneous response. Which is why it's interesting to see that at the time of this posting, several of the major progressive blogs are ignoring the story.

Are they hoping the story goes away, or formulating their own thoughtful responses? These sites have not been shy about devoting large swaths of attention to personal Republican scandals, so if we start seeing excuses of this being "below" the discussion threshold, you can safely assume that's a dodge.

MyDD is one of the few chiming in. Diarist American1989 writes:

Elizabeth is speaking at the DNC; John might not. Just amazing! SIDE THOUGHT: What if Kerry-Edwards won in 2004 and were running for re-election. This could have been devastating.

I am a bit surprised that Kevin Drum is taking the Edwards denial of being the father at face value. If you've already been lied to repeatedly by one of your party's leaders about the same subject in question, why give him the benefit of the doubt before a paternity test is taken? And if he's not the father, and the affair ended at least a year ago, why would he be making a secretive late-night visit to see and hold the child?

Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent recaps the news.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos, Open Left and Firedoglake remain silent.

Is it safe to say this is the best acting performance we've yet seen from Paris Hilton? Maybe the most shocking thing about the Hilton video is how neatly it fits into this year's campaign narrative.

If both candidates and their supporters were not concerned with the positive and negative aspects of celebrity, they would be ignoring this. Instead, it's well-cushioned between the general election's biggest viral videos, Obama's "Yes We Can" Will.i.am. video and McCain's "Celeb" ad, both of which use Hollywood to push a political message.
In fact, the entertainment website TMZ had the first campaign response to the ad, coming from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, who said:

"Sounds like Paris is taking the 'All of the Above' energy approach that John McCain has advocated -- both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama."

Meanwhile, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a one-word response, "Whatever," that some conservatives say reinforces McCain's own attack against Obama's character.

Also, for all the liberal bloggers praising Hilton this morning, a reminder that she has previously made racist comments and diatribes against the working poor.

Sadly, McCain could learn something from Hilton as well, as she clearly reads a teleprompter better than the presumptive Republican nominee. Watch the video again and notice Hilton's eyes moving back and forth as she reads the script for her "hybrid" energy proposal:

Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidate's ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved.

Blogger reactions after the jump...

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.

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.

In the wake of Ted Stevens' indictment, CQ Politics has changed its ranking in the Alaskan Senate race from leans Republican to leans Democratic. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich wasn't at the top of too many political radars before today, but with a weak remaining GOP field and polls showing Barack Obama posing a serious challenge in the state, that could all change.

In the meantime, some leading progressive bloggers are taking umbrage at the reaction to the Stevens' indictment from Democratic senators, including Daniel Inouye and California's Barbara Boxer. Even though Inouye's comments were limited to "he's innocent until proven guilty," and Boxer simply said she needed more information before commenting, the reaction from some bloggers like Matt Stoller has been swift:

Is everyone that comments part of the 9% of the country that approves of Congress?  Do you realize how out of touch you are when you defend this kind of behavior?  Don't you see that when you cheer the Bush Department of Justice and excuse the enabling Democrats in the Senate you are part of the problem? 

Stoller also links to a Swing State Project post from earlier this year, noting Inouye held a fundraiser for Stevens.

The indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens presents a number of opportunities and challenges to both national Republicans and those in his home state of Alaska. Stevens is already facing a steady stream of challengers in his Republican primary, but the bench of viable replacements for him is somewhat thin. MyDD's Josh Orton notes that Stevens can be replaced on the ballot if he resigns before September 17th.

Stevens has become infamous amongst younger voters for his comments describing the Internet as a "series of tubes."

While Stevens and Rep. Don Young remain scapegoats of wayward Republicanism, Gov. Sarah Palin is a transcendent political figure right now, with approval ratings hovering around 80 percent and a vice presidential draft movement afoot. But Next Right's Patrick Ruffini says:

But who to replace him? Sarah Palin? I suspect it's too soon to bury this rising star in the Senate.

Stevens has been a punching bag for John McCain when the presumptive Republican nominee discusses spending and government corruption. National Review editor Rich Lowry blogs that the indictment allows McCain a chance to do what he does best, without suffering fallout from the party faithful:

McCain should absolutely unload on Stevens, and frame it as the sort of dysfunction and corruption in Congress that he has long railed against. A good way to get some indie cred without upsetting any conservatives.

Meanwhile, Swampland's Michael Scherer says Stevens' possible exit from politics could change the way no-bid government contracts are awarded.

As I argued in an earlier post, John McCain is hoping this is a tortoise vs. hare race in his race against Barack Obama. While McCain lacks high-profile events or huge crowds, he is making intimate contact with voters in his signature townhall settings. Their bet is that voters will go for the candidate they know over the candidate they like.

Richard Cohen's latest Washington Post column compares the two candidates' records and finds Obama an unknown quantity, while conversely listing McCain's legislative and personal accomplishments, particularly those that run counter to party orthodoxy.


Matthew Yglesias says Cohen is playing favorites and that Obama is not a blank slate if you look at his policy positions:

Now in an ideal world candidates for office might release statements, speeches, documents, etc. about their policy ideas. People could scrutinize these ideas.

But NRO's Mark Hemingway questions Yglesias' standards of judgment:

So why again is Yglesias insisting Cohen give Obama credit for his stated intentions rather than his comparaitively small record of achievement?

Ed Morrissey says Obama is deliberately vague:

That doesn't make Obama an "unknown", as Cohen's headline reads, but a cipher.  Obama deliberately obfuscates his positions in order to make his outlook as opaque as possible.

When the Human Events website broke the news this morning that conservative columnist Robert Novak has been hospitalized with a brain tumor, the reaction was swift from bloggers on the left and right. Novak has been called a "traitor" by some on the left for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. It's also been a tough week for Novak publicly, after he was seemingly duped into reporting on John McCain's vice presidential selection timeline, and being cited for an alleged hit-and-run on a DC pedestrian.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey writes:

It will be interesting to see how this news gets received by the media and the blogosphere. When Ted Kennedy got a similar diagnosis, the outpouring of attention and good wishes spread across the political spectrum. Novak, who has reported on American politics for longer than Ted Kennedy has worked in it, will probably not get the same reaction.

Of course, even long-established and respected journalists rarely rise to the same stature as elected officials in the eyes of the public. Tim Russert was an exception, not the rule. Nonetheless, some in the media have been pretty harsh to Novak as the news broke today.

Celebrity/entertainment gossip site TMZ heckled Novak after the hit-and-run story last week and today says, "Right wing bad driver Robert Novak has has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. Does that affect your motor skills?"

Josh Marshall of liberal news site Talking Points Memo recaps the news and says: "We wish him the very best."

Meanwhile, it's the comment boards on progressive sites like Think Progress and Democratic Underground that are offering some less-favorable comments on the news.

Elisabeth Bumiller has a solid article in The New York Times today on John McCain's rough week, as he struggles for attention while the media is largely focused on Barack Obama's overseas trip:

Senator John McCain's presidential campaign recovered from a near-death experience almost exactly a year ago, and political candidates stumble in and out of troughs all the time. But it is safe to say that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is not having a spectacular week.

Most of the attention on McCain this week from the media has concerned whether he was being "ignored" by the press in favor of more Obama coverage. But a number of progressive bloggers have read the Bumiller piece and come away with a different take: The media's own "love affair" with McCain is over. At least for now,.

Firedoglake's Scarecrow:

Sure, it's tough to follow President 27%. But the fact is, whatever John McCain once was, campaigning against Obama has revealed McCain as an angry, resentful, often befuddled old man.

BarbinMD adds in her Daily Kos diary that McCain may have a point about focusing on domestic votes, but that our image abroad should not be ignored:

Does John McCain have a valid point? Or, could it be argued that while there aren't any electoral votes to be won in Germany, we do have many shared interests that need our attention? And given that Germany is a friend to our country, wasn't Obama's speech both necessary and appropriate?

This is something I've been thinking about this week. McCain is essentially hoping for a tortoise vs. hare campaign. While Obama gets the center stage and big crowds, McCain is slowly massaging the Republican base while connecting with real voters in his more intimate town hall settings. As McCain aide Mark Salter put it:

"I think he's getting his message out -- go look at some of the local press and the local TV packages," Mr. Salter said. "It's John McCain on energy and the economy."

(On Thursday in Pennsylvania, The Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre prominently featured Mr. McCain's comments in the state on Social Security; The Morning Call in Allentown covered Mr. McCain's stop at the grocery store, including his remarks that $4-a-gallon milk was putting a strain on American families.)

Over at the Politico, Jonathan Martin writes, "GOP losing the new-media war." The article is generating some thoughtful discussion from conservative tech folks inside the Beltway, even though it has already been addressed by mainstream outlets (yours truly on more than one occasion) and other conservative bloggers. 

In his piece, Martin writes:

While conservatives are devoting much of their Internet energy to analysis, their counterparts on the left are taking advantage of the rise of new media to create new institutions devoted to unearthing stories, putting new information into circulation and generally crowding the space traditionally taken by traditional media. And it almost always comes at the expense of GOP politicians.

Very similar to a point I made yesterday, while discussing recent moves by Matthew Yglesias and Spencer Ackerman. I also think it's worth noting that Martin himself worked briefly at National Review, and for Republican Rep. Christopher Shays before being hired by the Politico. So, he's a firsthand observer of the dilemma he's writing about. But it also calls into question this quote from David Brooks in the article:

"In the past 60 years, only one employee of the National Review, Weekly Standard or any conservative magazine has actually been hired as a reporter for a newspaper," says Brooks, who researched the question a few years ago.

With apologies to the crack research team Brooks enjoys at The New York Times, I can offer two examples within the past three years of employees of National Review being hired as reporters for mainstream publications: Jonathan Martin and myself. Yeah.

The Weekly Standard also employs at least four top reporters and editors: Stephen F. Hayes, Matt Labash, Matthew Continetti and Jonathan V. Last. With the exception of Continetti, these guys don't get a lot of attention from conservative bloggers, but that doesn't negate the insightful and often groundbreaking reporting they do.

The story bloggers are following most right now according to Memeorandum has nothing to do with the presidential election, but is instead about political reporter Robert Novak. Novak admitted to striking a pedestrian on a bicycle while driving his black Corvette, but said he was unaware of the incident until another pedestrian informed him. It's been a long week for Novak, who appears to have been taken for a ride by sources claiming John McCain would announce his vice presidential running mate this week.

The Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen alleges Novak wasn't following traffic laws:

Novak, 77, has earned a reputation around the capital as an aggressive driver and has said that his secret desire is to be king of . . . er, a race-car driver.

Not a lot of Novak sympathy out there, especially from Jane Hamsher, who speculates of Novak's motivation:

Trying desperately to get home before sunrise, no doubt.

Talk Left links to a Politico piece, which interviews the intervening pedestrian. The details are rough:

As he traveled east on K Street, crossing 18th, Bono said a "black Corvette convertible with top closed plowed into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed onto the windshield."

Bono said that the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a "Walk" signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and that Novak then made a right into the service lane of K Street. "The car is speeding away. What's going through my mind is, you just can't hit a pedestrian and drive away," Bono said.

CQ Politics colleague Jonathan Allen just noted on MSNBC that Bono is a former editor of the Harvard Law Review.

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.

With rumors circulating that a McCain vice presidential pick could come as early as this week, The Ethics Guy, aka Bruce Weinstein, outlines some of the ethical considerations of picking a VP. Weinstein argues that the pick should go beyond simple electoral vote calculations:

With so many critical issues before us, including a flagging economy, rising food and energy prices, a housing crisis, almost 50 million citizens without health-care insurance, and the ever-present danger of terrorism, it's reasonable to think that the next President may continue in the tradition of having a Vice-President who plays a significant role in determining the direction of our country.

I still think Novak's story was a distraction from the McCain campaign to put a dent in Obama's overwhelming, and overwhelmingly positive, blanket news coverage from overseas this week. But if the news is accurate, this would be a foolish decision on team McCain's part.

Unless, of course, you buy into my theory that McCain has already resigned himself to losing the election and is going to select Mitt Romney as his running mate because his dislikes Romney so much that he wants to critically damage his chances of being the 2012 nominee by putting him on a losing ticket this year. Zing.

Get all the latest on VP chatter by checking out CQ Politics' VP Watch.

The Campaign for Americas Future and Democracy Corps have released the results of a new polls this morning taken at the Netroots Nation conference of online progressive activists in Austin, Texas over the past weekend.

Several interesting trends emerged from the more than 2,000 activists who attended the conference. Of those who participated in the survey, 19 percent said "Energy and global warming" was their top concern, with "The war in Iraq" garnering 11 percent for a fourth place finish. However, when asked which issues should be the top priority of the next administration, the top choice was Iraq, getting 23 percent of the vote. Energy and global warming was a close second, with 20 percent of the vote.

The views of Congress were quite dim, with 68 percent saying Congress had accomplished "Not too much," and just 2 percent saying "A great deal." In fairness, 16 percent did say "A good amount," but that's still barely over 10 percent. 12 percent said "Nothing at all."

"This straw poll was designed to help us understand a little more about who our netroots activists are and where they stand," said Toby Chaudhuri, communications director for the Campaign for America's Future. "There's a sea change happening in American politics and it's growing on the Internet. Progressives are gaining popularity, strength, capacity and political sophistication, far outpacing conservatives online."

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.

The Dark Knight broke several box-office records this weekend, is the second-highest rated movie of the year so far by critics. And (in a fine testament to internet hyperbole, is currently ranked as the #1 movie of all-time on the Internet Movie Database. So, what does a new Batman movie have to do with politics? More than you might think. Critics have correctly pointed out the film is the first critically and commercially successful film dealing with 9/11 and terrorism. The film has philosophical debates about negotiating with terrorists, whether torture is justified, and the civil liberties trade off of using warrantless wiretaps to track criminals. And unlike most recent films explicitly about the Iraq War, it manages to fairly look at both sides of the debate with nuance. Oh, and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has a cameo.

The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last, who also blogs at Galley Slaves, has strong praise for the film:

As such, The Dark Knight, like Batman himself, takes a dim view of liberal (meaning "classical Western," not "lefty Democratic") pieties. Nolan's argument is that the invisible ropes binding us together are not as strong as we might like, or imagine. A snip here, a cut there, and our rules begin to break down. Liberalism is well-suited to managing the competitions and collisions of liberal peoples. But it can be fatally ill-equipped for confrontations with those not grounded in the same basic traditions.

Most of the political left are enjoying the movie as well, including The New Republic's Christopher Orr.

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.

Yesterday I came down pretty hard on the new Jib Jab video. Although I thought the bits with Obama riding a unicorn and McCain as Patton were kind of funny, most of the content revisits moments that have already been digested and lampooned by those following politics. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a funny accent? George Bush is unpopular and seen as a cowboy? Not exactly breakthrough material.

So, is the video simply a media fascination - a chance for us to talk about ourselves and the campaign that thousands of us are covering in some capacity? The video is on near-constant rotation on cable networks like MSNBC, but only has 30,000 hits on YouTube. That's not a huge number for a brand that has been around for a few years and is receiving so much attention. But it's also been making the rounds to a lesser extent on the blogs. So, what are people saying?

Over at Balloon Juice, the video has received 44 comments. Reader "Billy K" writes:

Am I the only one who thinks Jib Jab lacks the in-depth understanding of modern politics necessary to make, um....humor? I've never found their work funny or even insightful in the least.

"Sirkowski" adds:

A joke should be at least funny. The only people who find JibJab funny are journalists, because it represents their basic understanding of politics.

And "Space Cat" agrees:

I can't stand JibJab. They media herd has "decided" that it's just oh so witty, and now we are subjected to this bipartisan inanity every election season. CNN gushed over this piece of crap for 5 minutes this morning.

Meanwhile, more mainstream blogs, like the Dallas Morning News, call the video "another instant classic," and The Centrist Voice writes:

(note to The New Yorker: this is how one successfully does political satire about Barack Obama and John McCain):

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.

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.

John McCain's decision to turn his campaign operation over to Steve Schmidt is being treated as a sign of weakness by the media today. Although some have noted that McCain made a similar move during the Republican primaries; one that signaled his campaign's turnaround from disaster to eventual winner.

What matters more right now is how Republicans respond to the change in leadership and their initial reaction seems to be a positive one. Schmidt is known for his discipline and he was mentored by Karl Rove and worked on the Bush re-election campaign, which is definitely comforting to Republicans who see a lack of direction coming from McCain HQ. But Schmidt also helped salvage Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election when he too seemed in a helpless state. That should be reassuring to more moderate Republicans who worry about McCain running a race that's too conventional.

Patrick Ruffini, who initially supported Rudy Giuliani in the primaries, is happy with the Schmidt move:

I'm not completely impartial here, but this is the guy who took Arnold from less than a sure thing to a 20-point winner in 2006, who ran the confirmation processes for Justices Roberts and Alito, and and who was the Bush operative most responsible for defining John Kerry. So this is a big deal.

Liberal bloggers are going after Schmidt today for his ties to Karl Rove. But the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder says a direct comparison isn't accurate:

And what about Schmidt's relationship with Karl Rove? The two men do talk, but Republicans who know them both say that Schmidt is an independent operator -- not a Rove acolyte.

But even with the largely positive reception from conservative circles, not everyone is happy. Hot Air's Allahpundit worries that McCain's campaign may have already made too many major errors to bounce back:

What's the political strategy when you allow your opponent, who has just had a grueling four months, time to catch their breath, regroup, fundraise and start to define himself?

Christopher Hitchens is getting all sorts of attention today for this Vanity Fair piece, in which he voluntarily undergoes the waterboarding process and comes away convinced it is torture:

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

Hitchens has been a continued outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq. He's simultaneously been a critic of many of the administration's tactics, but his writings have earned the praise of many conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh in this weeks' New York Times Magazine cover story:

He is a fan of the columnists Camille Paglia and Thomas Sowell, both of whom he considers honest thinkers. And he is especially impressed by the essays of Christopher Hitchens. "He's misguided sometimes, but when you read him, you finish the whole article."

Now, will some of those same conservatives who crib Hitchens to support their war arguments be open to his real-life experience and subsequent argument against torture? So far, the article is being largely ignored in conservative circles, while liberal bloggers are jumping all over it.


UPDATE: Ana Marie Cox also wonders about the ability to persuade pro-torture types:

It's powerful and distrubing, but I suspect this is not something that will change the pro-torture people's minds ... But I don't think there are many people whose support for waterboarding is seriously based in the belief that it's not torture. They endorse it because it is torture, albeit a one that is superficially less risky and less likely to cause long term damage.

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.

One thing that's always bothered me about the prevalent anti-Bush arguments is that they are framed on a belief that the administration is simultaneously incompetent and engaged in large-scale conspiracies meant to mislead the public.

Fred Hiatt's new column pulls excerpts from the new Democratic Senate report from the Select Committee on Intelligence that make dents into the various "Bush Lied" arguments about Iraq. Hiatt says that while Bush, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, "spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq," there is little evidence in the new report that either "lied."

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Conservative bloggers are praising the column, but considering the best outcome is that your party's leader, and our country's president, relied on false information rather than intentionally misleading, bragging rights only extend so far. Liberal bloggers are largely ignoring the column, and those that are paying attention, are using it as a pivot point to attack John McCain.

The progressive blogosphere was largely responsible for pressuring several prominent Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama, to boycott a Fox News Channel sponsored debate earlier this year. So, it's been surprising to see a few examples of praise, or even just positive citations, of the network from left-leaning blogs. It shows how divisive the primary was when Clinton supporters find solace with the same network most liberals say been a "mouthpiece" of the Bush administration. Though in fairness it also credits Fox for producing quality content even non-Clinton supporting progressive news blogs think is worth linking to.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh says she still believes Fox is staffed by "conservatives," but also says she thinks Obama will end his Fox boycott soon and praises the network for its treatment of Clinton:

There's been a progressive ban on all things Fox for a very long time, for good reasons. But I walked away from that strategy when the only fair press Clinton was getting came on Fox. That doesn't mean they'll be "fair and balanced" to the Democrats during the general election. Because we all know that Brit Hume and company are conservatives. But including Juan Williams, Fox has been fair to Clinton, which is where my prism of judgment lies right now.

Talking Points Memo also posts a video complication highlighting Fox's negative reaction to John McCain's speech on the same night Obama wrapped up the nomination fight.

Meanwhile, conservative media site Newsbusters looks at a Pew survey of political bias in cable news coverage and finds that while Democrats and Republicans are split in their preference for MSNBC:

Far more Republicans (24%) than Democrats (10%) get most of their campaign news from Fox [News Channel], while the opposite is true for CNN: 24% of Democrats look to CNN compared with just 13% of Republicans.

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.

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.

Read this post by Citizen Mom and you'll get a very strong sense the challenge Barack Obama faces in the aftermath of his Democratic primary victory. Nearly all the Democrats who voted in this year's primary states will surely support him. That's not the variable. It's whether they will vote for him, raise money for him and tell their friends to vote for him. It would be the same challenge facing Hillary Clinton had she won the nomination:

I'll still vote for Barack Obama in November. But you should understand why I'm not feeling great about it this morning.

...

Here's what that non-concession sounded like to my ears:  Obama may have garnered a sufficient number of delegates to secure a historic nomination for the presidency. He may even beat John McCain, with the support of many Democrats who cast their primary ballots for Clinton -- including me. But he certainly hasn't "won" my vote.

Liberal bloggers, and Barack Obama's online supporters in general, have been cool to the notion of having Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. However, heading into yesterday's final day of Democratic primaries, there appeared to be some cracks in the opposition, as even some of those aligned against Clinton conceded that her close primary finish gave her a strong bargaining chip for the VP slot. And then last night's speeches happened. Obama's has been near universally praised. The pundits have also largely praised Clinton's speech, saying if she had run her campaign this way, she would be the nominee. But the netroots have responded much, much differently. If they were already largely opposed to Obama picking her, Clinton's refusal to withdrawal last night, or even suspend her campaign, is getting more attention than Obama's actual victory. It may have been "her night," as some Clinton insiders insisted, but certainly not in the way they'd hoped.

Making matters worse, the Republican National Committee posted a video today entitled, "Democrats vs. Obama," that includes footage of both Hillary and Bill Clinton attacking Obama, and Hillary offering some praise of John McCain's experience compared to that of Obama's "speech from 2002."





Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term.

Andrew Sullivan:

But to have endured the kind of campaign the Clintons ran and concede to her wishes now would be an act of weakness that the Clintons would exploit were he to become president.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis:

Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman.

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.

Despite the Clinton and Obama teams claims to the contrary, Democratic Strategist blogger Ed Kilgore says "there is no such thing as an 'official' popular vote count," in the Democratic primaries.

In their campaign conference call today, the Clinton campaign's Harold Ickes acknowledged that Florida and Michigan violated DNC rules by changing their primary calendar dates without permission. If taken on their merits, Ickes' comments could be interpreted as admission that seating of half the FL/MI delegates may be the best Clinton can hope for. That leaves Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat to the conclusion that:

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so.

Ground Game is back today and so is Bob Dole, apparently. The 1996 Republican presidential candidate and former Kansas senator rips into Scott McClellan in an acerbic email in which he describes the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who is trying to cash in on President Bush's unpopularity:

[I]f all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job.

That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively,

Dole has surprised the public before with his passion and wit, but the initial reaction to this email seems to be more along the lines of shock and awe. In my earlier post on McClellan I said he would have been demonstrating real courage by stepping down from his position at the time, rather than when it was politically and financially convenient. Not everyone agrees with that take, but I'm not the only voice in the blogosphere airing such sentiment. The Moderate Voice's Pete Abel:

Regardless of how you feel about Bob Dole, he makes a great point. The definition of a real hero is one who stands up to a wrong at the time it's committed, not later, and not for the purposes of personal profit.

This is the second time Dole has played a role in the 2008 election season. Earlier this year, he was involuntarily thrust into the Republican primary when former candidate Mitt Romney compared John McCain's chances to Dole's failed '96 run.

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new tell-all book, "What Happened," about his time in the Bush administration is receiving all kinds of attention from liberal bloggers. Most point to McClellan's assertion that the WH used propaganda to sell the war in Iraq and that McClellan felt he often gave "misleading" information to the public. But these political diatribes should always be put in proper context. Is McClellan heroic, or even brave, for trashing administration at a time when the president has record-low approval ratings? McClellan seems more opportunistic than anything, finally swinging back at officials who made him their fall guy and cashing in on an increasingly unpopular former boss. If he were truly brave, he would have resigned while the events chronicled in his book were happening, ala Paul O'Neill.

After the jump are the top five responses to the McClellan story from liberal bloggers:

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.

John McCain faces an electoral trade-off as the presumptive Republican nominee for president. His preferred stance on immigration, "comprehensive reform," is one that is popular with a majority of Americans but loathed by large swaths of the self-appointed conservative movement. During his party's primaries, McCain made a respectable compromise in promising to secure the nation's borders before pursuing a path to legalization for the millions of undocumented workers and illegal immigrants already in the country. It's a fine example of the kind of compromise McCain touts on a regular basis. And like any good compromise, it has those with purist/extreme views on immigration very upset.

Right Wing News' John Hawkins is topping the conservative blogosphere's discussion this morning with his post entitled, "Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President." Hawkins has withdrawn his already tepid endorsement of McCain, saying the Arizona senator has flip-flopped on his earlier immigration policy reversal. It's a quintessential blog post: well-written, a little over-the-top and loose with the facts. Case in point:

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity

Even McCain's fiercest critics on the left, who also occasionally play loose with the facts, i.e. "100 years in Iraq," rarely employ such dramatic language. But the truth is, McCain has not changed his position. Ed Morrissey, who is every bit as much a legitimate conservative as Hawkins, says it best:

McCain never pledged to give up comprehensive immigration reform. He pledged to secure the borders first, but even in the extensive quotes that John has in his post, he never promised to stop seeking a comprehensive solution for illegal immigration afterwards. Even in this sequence, he talks about border security first. I don't see this as "breaking his security pledge", as John puts it.

So, back to that electoral trade-off. Is McCain best served by appeasing die hards like Hawkins and Michelle Malkin? They're support has been weak already and there's little evidence their influence as blog writers equates to movement at the ballot box. After all, both were big fans of Duncan Hunter's presidential run. Nonetheless, McCain is dealing with some tricky math. At what point does he maximize his potential support from the far right and begin jeopardizing some of that support to appeal to a larger section of the centrist voting public?

She was for excluding Michigan and Florida before she was against it. That's the hard truth about Hillary Clinton's latest push to convince the DNC to count the two state's delegates (and popular vote totals) during their May 31st bylaws meeting. In a fundraising email sent to Clinton supporters this afternoon, she writes:

Yesterday, I spoke to voters in Florida, and they are all too familiar with the consequences of not counting every vote.

On May 31, we'll hear the decision from the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee on whether they'll seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. And while we wait to hear their ruling, you and I must keep fighting together to win every last vote in the final three races.

But as The New Republic's Jonathan Chait blogs today:

It's worth repeating: They supported this "disenfranchisement." Here's a New York Times story from last fall, headlined, "Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States."

Blog news aggregator Memeorandum's two leading stories this morning are Joe Lieberman's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal going after Democrats and Barack Obama on foreign policy, and Sam Stein's piece in the Huffington Post on how Chuck Hagel has been praising Obama while criticizing fellow Republican John McCain.

Neither Lieberman or Hagel have been shy about crossing party lines or attacking their own. Lieberman has special reason to go after Obama, the Dem frontrunner endorsed Ned Lamont, Lieberman's challenger in the 2006 Connecticut primary.

Blog P.I. looks at the two pieces and sees a disparity between conservative and liberal bloggers' focus:

I see conservative bloggers supporting the Lieberman op-ed, and liberal bloggers criticizing it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of liberal bloggers supporting the article about Hagel, but no right-leaning bloggers weighing in on the same.

That does seem about right to me. The left's approach to things they don't like about the other side is to engage - usually with anger, counter-research, and occasionally reporting. The right's approach is to ignore things about its own party or movement they don't find appealing, i.e. Hagel. They tend to reserve their passion for things they dislike that explicitly emerge from the political left.

Last night's split decision in Kentucky and Oregon pushed Barack Obama into the majority of pledged delegates but also shaved his popular vote lead over Hillary Clinton down by 150,000 votes. Here's a sampling of how conservative and liberal bloggers are responding this morning to last night's results.

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner:

Clinton is losing but by a very small margin. Obama has to play nice for fear that she'll be halfhearted in backing him in the Fall.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat says it is wrong to declare Obama having won a majority of pledged delegates without counting Florida and Michigan:

He has handed Hillary Clinton the most appealing battle cry a politician could possibly have - count the votes. Donna Brazile and Keith Olbermann and the other Obama surrogates can scream about the RULZ. Hillary Clinton can fight for the votes!

Hot Air's Allahpundit looks at the exit polls and finds this:

Interesting tidbit: Of the 42% of Democrats who say Obama shouldn't pick Hillary as VP, fully half of them voted today for Hillary. I'm not sure how to interpret that.

While Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan says the Oregon exit polls show Obama's broad appeal:

Almost a mirror image of Kentucky tonight: currently a 60 - 40 Obama win. Obama won those earning less than $50,000 by 52 percent to 46 percent. He wins independents 65 - 32.

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.

A week ago, the buzz was that Mike Huckabee sat atop the list of potential vice presidential running mates for John McCain. Seven days later that seems a distant memory, after Huckabee's joke at the NRA's annual meeting about Obama having a gun pointed at him. Despite his strong showing with evangelical voters in the Republican primary, Huckabee has never been a favorite amongst conservative bloggers. And many of those same bloggers see the NRA joke as taking Huckabee out of the VP race:

AmSpec's James Antle:

I don't think there was any malice on Huckabee's part when he made his Obama gaffe. But I do think it shows spectactularly poor judgment and the potential for some Quayle-ian moments should he get the vice presidential nod.

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

A momentary lapse of the tongue shouldn't be enough to keep someone off the ticket, but it probably will be enough. A McCain selection of Huckabee in a race against Obama would get this joke played and replayed about as often as "macaca."

Hot Air's Allahpundit:

The left will use it as a Larger Truth about the NRA; the media will use it to find some racial subtext that isn't actually there; and righteous conservative bloggers will use it to gently suggest that perhaps Huck isn't VP material.

Barack Obama's assertion that Republicans should "lay off my wife," is drawing a united response from righty bloggers and the larger conservative movement mouthpieces, like Rush Limbaugh. Obama is upset because the Tennessee GOP has released an internet video showing clips of Michelle Obama saying she is "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," before the Wisconsin Democratic primary earlier this year.



This isn't the first controversial move from the TN GOP, who earlier released a picture of Obama that they claimed showed the senator in "Muslim garb," which John McCain and the RNC both objected to.

So, is Obama right that Republicans are unfairly targeting his wife? At least in this instance, the answer is "no." Obama has frequently used his wife as a campaign surrogate, and the comments included in the TN GOP video come from a campaign event. It's not uncommon to try having it both ways in politics, as Obama is doing here. But conservative bloggers are correct in claiming Michelle Obama's comments here are fair game. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey put it:

If Obama doesn't want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn't use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail. Whatever she says on the stump at campaign events is fair game for criticism, just as it has been with Bill Clinton.

Libertarians want their ideas, and to a lesser extent, their candidates, to be taken seriously. Ex-Rep. Bob Barr's entrance into the Libertarian Party primary will gin up some attention for the former lawmaker and get a small amount of press today, but he's not the candidate to carry libertarians into the position of being America's influential third party. However, the far more pressing question is whether he can steal enough votes to derail John McCain's chances in November? As I noted last month, Barr lacks the necessary qualities to be a viable presidential candidate.

Tech President also thinks Barr will have a tough time duplicating the enthusiasm of Ron Paul. And let's not forget that for all the money and rallies raised in Paul's honor, he's never been an electorally competitive candidate:

It’s unlikely that Barr will be able to replicate the successes of Ron Paul without a strong endorsement from Paul and a passing-of-the-torch moment. Paul supporters remain deeply loyal to their candidate, and seem gung ho in their efforts to transform the Republican Party through aggressive (some say annoying) means.

As Tech President notes, Barr's announcement comes at the same time Ron Paul's supporters are stating their intent to not give up on his campaign even if he cant' win the Republican Party's nomination. The Los Angeles Times looks into how Ron Paul supporters plan to disrupt the Republican convention.

Last month, Allahpundit downplayed the threat of Barr run, with one exception:

The only potential trouble spot is Georgia, where Barr is from and where Obama did surprisingly well among young white voters. He could factor into a close race there and knock a lean-McCain state into toss-up, but Georgia’s got a Republican governor and two Republican senators available to campaign if things get hairy. Where exactly is the threat here?

John McCain's moderate stance on immigration has caused him some serious grief within GOP circles, but pairs up nicely with the views of a strong majority of the overall electorate. That's why McCain's new outreach video to Hispanic voters is winning accolades from even lefty partisans like Matthew Yglesias, who calls the ad "shrewd":

McCain's mission is to communicate "I'm not a racist" to his most likely Hispanic supporters, and given the tendency of small business owners everywhere to love the GOP a specific focus on small business seems smart.

Hillary Clinton brought her case to USA Today arguing that she has the better general election demographics to take on John McCain in the general election:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Since liberal bloggers have proclaimed the end of her campaign en masse, it's not surprising they are treating her latest effort as less than helpful. It's actually irrelevant whether her comments rise (or fall) to the level of racism. They will be interpreted as such by enough Democrats to be damaging to her cause. Of course, exactly what that cuase is at this point remains strikingly unclear.

John Aravosis says Clinton's "race baiting" could hurt African American turnout for Democrats in the fall:

There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man. And our party leaders are okay with it. (Well, in all fairness, our congressional leaders said that Hillary had better not adopt a "negative tone." They never said she couldn't adopt a racist one.) Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again. If our party continues to give a thumbs-up to race-baiting in American politics in the year 2008, race-baiting in our own party, I'd be very surprised if blacks came out for us in November. Nor should they.

Clinton has so enraged the blogging class that she turns even cool headed writers like Reason's Matt Welch into name-calling "Hitlery" bomb throwers. Although, being the reasoned voice that he is, Welch does offer a tantalizing prospect for those who dislike Clinton and are having trouble measuring that personal distaste against what is a fair argument for her staying in the race:

I sincerely hope Hillary takes it all the way to the convention, even if that means I won't be able to watch cable TV for a few months. Few prospects would delight me more than seeing the Clintons stand up on a national stage in front of the political party they've long dominated and then get showered with richly deserved boos.

Even Jennifer Rubin at the conservative Commentary website seems a bit shocked by it all:

All those suspicions about her preference for a potential one-term McCain presidency rather than a two-term Obama one are only going to increase with comments like this.

The liberal blogosphere has been discussing the presumed end of the Democratic primary for nearly two months. And now that the media has "caught up" with their analysis, bloggers are largely reveling in their own perceived insights, with many pointing to this video of NBC's Tim Russert declaring the primary over:







 
Open Left's Chris Bowers:

Even though she has some good states left--West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico--it is extremely hard to see how Clinton catches up now. Obama's overwhelming advantages should start to sink in with the media now, especially given that he beat expectations despite Wright and arugula and whatever. Those attacks are not working.

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen says that by enduring the extended primary, it is Obama who has come out as the "fighter":

Oddly enough, it’s now Obama who can make use of Clinton’s talking points. He’s the one who can persevere. He’s the one who keeps fighting, even after having been knocked down. He’s the durable candidate who bounces back from adversity.

MyDD's Todd Beeton, a Clinton supporters, says it's time to recognize that Clinton cannot win:

I no longer see a real path to victory for Hillary Clinton and I now believe Barack Obama will be the nominee of our party.

Now this isn't in any way to suggest that Senator Clinton should drop out -- you know where I stand on whether this primary has been good or bad for the party -- it's only to say that I now believe that she will. I saw it on Bill Clinton's face as he stood behind Hillary during her speech tonight. I come to this realization with no small amount of disappointment but I'm left hopeful as well. I've seen a new man emerge in Barack Obama over the past few days.

John McCain gave a speech this morning outlining his judicial philosophy. The speech didn't contain much of anything new to those who have followed Republican approaches to the judiciary: avoid "judicial activism," nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, etc. But for McCain, it's a speech he needed to give, and may need to give again, to assure movement conservative voters that he is of their ilk when it comes to future judicial appointments. The one interesting point was McCain cited the Gang of 14, which in his view, led to the successful nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Even if there's a lot of truth in his rationale, it's highly unlikely to be warmly received by self-described conservatives who see any degree of compromise on judges as an abject failure.

Marc Ambinder notes the press doesn't understand why McCain wanted to talk about his philosophy rather than debating the merits of significant past cases.

Writing that McCain's audience is "grasping it perfectly," Mary Kathering Ham writes:

I suppose it's natural that the press would assume McCain would spend an entire speech about the judicial system talking about policy instead of principles. The beauty of conservatives, however, is that they understand judicial philosophy is not about enacting preferred policies.

In his New York Times column today, Bill Kristol makes his case why Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, 36, would make a good vice presidential pick for John McCain:

They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak. It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.”

However, that assumes implicitly acknowledging McCain age "questions" is the best route for the presumptive Republican nominee. He seems to have had more success defying expectations about his age by running a vigorous campaign scheduling and regularly having his 96-year-old mother appear at campaign stops.
There are plenty of very good reasons to pick Jindal: his accomplishments, proven ability to win in a toss-up state in a bad electoral time for Republicans, solid conservative record and appeal to a growing minority segment of the population. But picking him primarily because his age stands in stark contrast to McCain's may not be a good choice at all.

The reaction from conservative bloggers to Kristol's column can be described as lukewarm at best. Blogger reactions after the jump...

Atlantic scribe Jeffrey Goldberg enters the foreboding world of blogging and comes away from his initial excursion a bit bruised and battered. A blogger for the New York Observer errantly makes fun of Goldberg, to which the author wonders:

It seems to me to be a basic point. Haber's post on my blog would have been more interesting if he actually got me to talk about my reporting. I might have even inadvertently offered him ammunition.

It's one of the mysteries of the blogosphere, why more people don't simply pick up the phone once in a while.

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.

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:

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 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...

The big media watching last night's Pennsylvania returns see an outcome that will result in the two Democratic candidates more furiously attacking each other, and likely hurting their party's chances to win the White House this fall. As Slate's John Dickerson put it:

For those in the Democratic Party who are worried that the race has gotten too ugly, it looks like it's going to get even uglier.

And he has a valid point. The media threshold for a Clinton victory was 10 points, which she met exactly. But past performance dictates that Clinton would have continued her campaign had she won by a single vote, hence her campaign's "A Win is a win," stance of the past few days. But to truly change the dynamic of the race, she likely would have needed a blowout victory in the range of 20 points. So, if the probably mathematical outcome of the race hasn't been fundamentally altered, the remaining question is, "How much does this hurt Obama and the Democrats after he secures the nomination?"

The New York Times offers this editorial analysis:

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

But if voters are in fact getting tired of it, why did they come out in substantially higher numbers than 2004, and why did they give Clinton a double-digit victory? Even if many voters nationally are "getting tired of it," most of them (including New York) already had a chance to cast their vote for one of the candidates in one of the two major parties. Still, while most progressive bloggers are pushing for Clinton to exit the race, some continue to argue that the protracted battle won't hurt their party's chances in the general election.

In a post titled, "Democrats Are Going to Be Fine," Matt Stoller says:

Don't get distracted by noise.  It's fun to bite your nails and fret about how Democrats are tearing themselves apart, which of course I heard plenty of on the various cable shows.  But whatever.  Obama's probably going to take the nomination as Clinton doesn't have enough to win, and her annoyed supporters will move to Obama after she endorses him.

More blogger reactions after the jump...

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?

For potentially millions of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania today, it's Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama in a primary battle that just may end the protracted battle for their party's nomination.

But in the political blogosphere today, the top story is Bill Clinton's accusation to WHYY radio yesterday that the Obama campaign "played the race card" against him:

“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along.” - President Bill Clinton.

Clinton has since denied making the accusation, directly conflicting his statement to WHYY.


Blogger reactions after the jump...

Yesterday's Washington Post's Michael Leahy had a lengthy, page 1 story on the history of John McCain's temperament, chronicling both alleged and confirmed events. The story is well-balanced and serves its role of seeking to inform the electorate by containing interviews with McCain detractors and supporters. It even has follow-up interviews with alleged victims of McCain's temper who nonetheless support his presidential campaign. But the piece is generating outrage from several conservative bloggers who view it as another attack on the presumptive Republican nominee from an increasingly adversarial press.

The story's fallout is likely a win-win situation for McCain. There isn't much, if any, evidence to suggest that voters will turn against McCain because of past stories about his temper. It would almost certainly take a current example during the campaign of McCain losing his temper in an unseemly fashion for true fallout to occur. It's also likely to make "base" conservatives more comfortable defending him, even as many of them are still going through an adjustment period of sorts with McCain.

I don't agree with Hugh Hewitt's view that the story is an example of "liberal media bias," but he's correct here:

McCain ought to send a thank-you to Leahy. There's nothing like a wave of agenda journalism attacks on the GOP nominee to rally conservatives to him.

More blogger reactions after the jump...

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 Washington Post sports writer Michael Tunison was fired by the paper on Wednesday after disclosing his identity, and publishing pictures of himself intoxicated, on the Kissing Suzy Kolber blog (warning: not family friendly).

Tunison's firing has generated the sympathy of some sports blogs, and an evasive reasoning from Tunison himself who argued:

Upon sacking, I was told that I brought “discredit to the paper” with my choosing to drink at bars in my free time. Any good journo knows to keep the flask in the desk

Of course, "choosing to drink at bars in my free time" has nothing to do with why Tunison was fired. Tunison and his supporters may not like it, but news publications like the WaPo have standards of conduct that are often more stringent than typical employers, especially when it comes to freelancing. This Editor and Publisher piece outlines the WaPo's rules explicitly:

The official Post stylebook includes the following references to freelance work and standards of behavior:

“This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business. In particular:

•We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper.

•Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post."

As a blogger/reporter, several of my friends were surprised that I chose to not defend Tunison's conduct. But this is not a case of his free speech being limited, or being punished for having "fun in his free time." Working for a publication like The Washington Post is an exceptional opportunity, not a constitutional right. Every professional publication I've worked for has had clear guidelines about freelance work and outside blogging.

I've turned down several opportunities to do fun, outside projects because of those guidelines, as I'm sure is the case with countless colleagues. But it's also true that every publication I've worked for has awarded me ample opportunity to engage in freelance activities that provided a creative outlet that did not compete with my primary work duties. The difference between Tunison's experience and the experience of someone like me, is that I always sought prior permission before engaging in said freelance activities. I also never posted posted pictures of myself drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, while simultaneously referring to my current employer as the arbiter of a "dying medium." Whether Tunison was being paid for his outside work is irrelevant. The WaPo was well-within its rights to fire him, even if Tunison or his sports blogging friends think it was an unnecessary move.

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.

Over at New York Times campaign blog, David Brooks defends the questions in last night's debates, arguing that they may be stupid questions, but those are the kinds of questions candidates will face in the general election:

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

Andrew Sullivan:

I see no reason to excuse Obama's bad performance. But I cannot fathom why we should exonerate the execrable standards of ABC News at the same time.

Asking, "Which debate was David Brooks watching?" The Washington Independent's Holly Yeager asks:

[T]hose of us who watched on television should know that it was even worse to be inside the National Constitution Center. As someone who was inside the Kimmel Theatre told me, "At home, you can scream at your TV."

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.

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.

George Will writes in his Newsweek column on how former Bob Barr could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 if the former Georgia congressman wins the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. The notion of a Barr presidential run has been picking up steam in libertarian circles and some blogs, but I think the estimation of his potential impact is greatly exaggerated.

First, Will cites the past presidential runs of George Wallace and Nader, and notes the highly successful fundraising efforts of Ron Paul in this year's Republican primary. The comparison is flawed at best. As Will himself notes, Wallace had three things going for him that Barr does not:

Wallace had the three traits that, when combined, make a third-party candidate formidable. He had a burning issue (national disorder that he blamed on the civil-rights revolution), a regional base (the South) and a vivid personality.

When Nader ran in 2000 he was a nationally recognized figure with more than 30 years of public service, best-selling books, and had the benefit of competing against an Al Gore campaign that many viewed as subpar in an election many also thought didn't matter.

Ron Paul did in fact raise a lot of money over the past year, but he didn't win enough votes to affect the Republican primaries in meaningful way, like Mike Huckabee did. Also, it wasn't Paul's libertarian views that drew his large swaths of supporters and "money bombs," it was his anti-war sentiment. Barr may also oppose the war, but he won't appeal to liberal and anti-war constituencies in the same way Paul did and continues to do so. Paul also manged to fend off a recent challenge to his Texas congressional seat, while Barr lost his in 2002.

I think most libertarians know if they really wanted to run a strong Libertarian Party candidate this year, that candidate would be Ron Paul. And even then, his true electoral impact would be minimal. But the money he could raise for building up the LP, would be very significant. But Paul has already ruled out a second run on the Libertarian ticket (he was their nominee in 1988).

Reason's Dave Weigel looks more at what Barr's candidacy might mean for the Libertarian Party and Stacy McCain interviews Barr over at the American Spectator website.

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.

Both critics and supporters of Hillary Clinton, for varying reasons, say her presidency would be a return of sorts to the 1990's. We've seen the downside of that in recent weeks when Clinton's candidacy was damaged after her repeated claims of coming under "sniper fire" in Bosnia while serving as First Lady were proven to be false.
ABC News, which first broke video of Clinton's actual Bosnia landing, now reports that Bill Clinton has been defending his wife's handling of the blunder, but has been flubbing the facts as well, while attempting to downplay his wife's political fumble in what they call a bit of "revisionist history."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis calls Bill Clinton's comments an "outright lie," and adds:

Hillary actually "misspoke" four times over four months. Then the campaign had their surrogates and press staff fan out in order to defend Hillary's lie as the truth. Now repeated members of the Clinton campaign have claimed that Hillary simply misspoke "once." It's a flat-out lie. They know it's a lie. But they seem to think that you're so stupid, you won't notice. Amazing.

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle says:

It looks like Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama isn't the only thing the Clintons can't let go of.

Meanwhile, over at the conservative Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin asks:

Does he want his wife to lose? Maybe he’s a hopeless, pathological fabulist. Or maybe he just doesn’t understand how hard it is to get away with easily fact-checked lies in a 24/7 news environment.

CNN has a slightly misleading headline, which claims a new poll shows a John McCain/Condoleezza Rice ticket "could win big." The actual poll cited is of New York only. It's certainly interesting, after all, it shows such a ticket even beating a Clinton/Obama, or Obama Clinton ticket in the state. But it doesn't carry the national implications the headline suggests. Nonetheless, it has stirred some renewed discussion about the possibility of Secretary Rice becoming McCain's vice presidential running mate. Most criticisms center on Rice's lack of campaign experience and her close ties to the Bush administration.

The JustOneMinute blog earlier tried to knock down Rice speculation and again argues:

[B]asically, a Rice nomination re-opens the entire pre-war intelligence and planning can of worms and keeps alive topics such as the Yoo memo on torture.

And some anti-McCain bloggers using the opportunity to go after the presumptive GOP nominee as well.

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.

John McCain's new web ad, featuring several African-Americans and calling for a civil campaign, isn't winning praise from what should be supportive voices, like Ross Douthat and Mickey Kaus. Kaus says:

A 10 on the Condescendometer. Also endless. After 30 seconds you are yelling at it "Get to the F-----g Point!" It never does. It's Barney the purple dinosaur's speech at the next Bloomberg Nonpartisanship Symposium. Repeat playing would be an excellent enhanced interrogation technique.

But Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan has kind words for both the ad and the candidate:

It's an encouraging sign that McCain is not going to pull a Rove this fall; it's a deft way of dealing with racial difference - check out the number of African-Americans in the ad - and it co-opts the "Goodbye To All That" appeal of Obama. A bit syrupy - and McCain doesn't always live up to its message. But it suggests to me that McCain has figured out the public mood. And sees himself as a unifying father-figure.

Arguably, the greatest electoral victory for the netroots was the defeat of Joe Lieberman in his 2006 Senate primary against Ned Lamont. Lieberman went on to win the general election, but has retained the scorn of liberal bloggers. The day before the primary vote, Lieberman's campaign charged Lamont's campaign with crashing their campaign website. Now, an FBI investigation reveals that it was in fact Lieberman's own campaign who was responsible for crashing their own site:

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

Needless to say, liberal bloggers are on the war path.

Daily Kos diarist Scout Finch:

Will Joe Lieberman publicly apologize to Ned Lamont?  And when exactly is the investigation going to begin into Lieberman's election tactics?

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher:

Anyone who reported on this and doesn't want to give the same amount of time to re-evaluating this embarrassment, and what it reflects about our media system that this kind of thing could happen, should find themselves another profession.

Former CNN Internet reporter Jackie Schechner chimes in at the liberal AMERICAblog as well.

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.

Hillary Clinton is getting some praise from conservative bloggers for her call on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of this year's Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. 

Noting that agreeing with Clinton "happens every so often," The American Spectator's Philip Klein says;

An all out boycott of the Olympics wouldn't be fair to the athletes who worked so hard to get to this point, so let them compete. But were President Bush himself to boycott the games, it would make an important statement on human rights.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin echoes Klein's sentiment and adds the move is a good sign of Clinton's post-Mark Penn posturing:

This strikes me, aside from the argument’s merits, as just plain smart politics. It shifts the focus off Penn-gate. It sounds a note simultaneously likely to appeal to those on the Right (who like standing up to dictators) and Left (who want more attention to human rights). She was first of the candidates to speak up on this issue and now looks bolder than her opponents. If this is a sign of the post-Penn Hillary, things may be looking up.

Liberal bloggers are again going after John McCain for describing al Qaeda in Iraq as an organization comprised of Shiite Muslims. Their reaction illustrates two points: How a candidate's perceived strengths often become their greatest vulnerabilities, and the diminishing marginal returns of focusing on one area of criticism. Here's the actual exchange from today's testimony:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

Democrats, and their liberal blogger allies, clearly see an opening to attack McCain on what they consider a lack of sophistication on national security knowledge; the very area he has based nearly his entire campaign on. However, in today's exchange between McCain and Gen. David Petraeus, McCain almost immediately corrected himself. If Democrats will look to these gaffes as evidence that McCain is unfit to be commander-in-chief they may be expending energy that could be better spent going after larger, and more politically vulnerable, aspects of McCain's platform. It's in some ways comparable to conservatives still focusing on Barack Obma's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While the initial critique revealed the first measurable "dents" in Obama's public persona, the shelf left on that issue, at least in the Democratic primary, seems greatly diminished. Too much focus on this singular point makes it seem like Republicans are desperate for an attack line, and the media will eventually tire of covering it (if they aren't already), therefore limiting the narrative's ability to reach voters not already familiar with it. 

Blogger reactions after the jump...

Senators are hearing a story of measurable progress in Iraq; from a reduction in violence, to incremental advancements on the political front. Liberal bloggers haven't backed down from their criticism of the war, and Gen. Patraeus testimony, which they see as overly optimistic. Conservative bloggers remain focused on what they see as signs of success, and countering attempts to diminish Petraeus' credibility.

Kyle E. Moore says a "success" argument doesn't comport with the request to pause troop reduction plans:

My question is, if things are going so great, why do we still need to maintain troop levels elevated over pre-surge levels? The party line is, of course, to prevent back skidding, but if the ultimate point of the surge was to foment political reconciliation, would any modicum of actual success along those parameters negate the possibility of back skidding?

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith says the media will be paying too much attention to the presidential candidates and not enough to the actual Petraeus/Crocker testimony:

With Sens. Clinton, McCain and Obama in the Senate Armed Services Committee for the testimony today, expect the media to parse every last syllable, facial expression and eye roll from the presidential candidates. Would that they would give the same level of scrutiny to the honeyed evasions and pronouncements dripping off the tongues of Petraeus and Crocker

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin calls Carl Levin an "idiot" for referring to Petraeus as "admiral."

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.

The biggest story in the blogosphere is discussion over any fallout from Mark Penn's decision to step down from his role as key adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

My CQ Politics colleague David Corn says Penn's departure takes a future weapon out of Barack Obama's arsenal.

RedState's Mark Kilmer says Penn should not be blamed for Hillary's campaign troubles:

It's not Penn's fault that she failed to become her party's nominee. She is a lousy candidate. The only reason she was taken seriously is that she was Bill Clinton's wife, and that's frankly not enough. There was nothing Penn could have done.

And the Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen says Clinton only abandoned Penn in a desperate attempt to win union support:

Shame on him, but shame on the Hero of Bosnia for once again putting loyalty ahead of everything else and only jettisoning the toxic Penn when the Pennsylvania labor unions whose votes she desperately needs in the do-or-die April 22 primary cried foul over the weekend.

North Carolina's Patrick McHenry was elected to a safe Republican district in 2004. During his short time in the House, McHenry has made a lot of enemies across the aisle with his partisan positions on many issues. So, it comes as little surprise that when McHenry makes an unsavory insult about a U.S. soldier in Iraq, that video is catching fire in the blogosphere. In the video, first brought to attention by Think Progress, and quickly gaining traction on YouTube, finds McHenry referring to a U.S. soldier in Iraq as a "two-bit security guard." The video has also resulted in a disparaging press release from McHenry's primary chalenger, Lance Sigmon. In the video, McHenry says :

We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway.

Blogger reactions after the jump...

... good news for Democrats?

That's how many liberal bloggers are interpreting a new, national right track/wrong track poll released by CBC/The New York Times today:

In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002.

Firedoglake poster "Scarecrow" cites the findings as evidence of Republican failure:

The primary reason McCain isn't sharing Bush's dismal approval numbers and trailing Clinton/Obama badly is because the media are shielding him from political gravity. They need to let go and let the entire party crash. They've earned it.

As does Daily Kos diarist "DemFromCT":

And this is not going to help John McCain win an election (nor help John Boehner keep his job..

Air America Radio offers more of the same

Matthew Yglesias looks deeper into the findings and notes how the respondents are evenly split at 43 percent as to whether Americans want government to solve their problems:

So the numbers are tied, but focus on the trend. Americans are notoriously hostile to big government in the abstract but tend in practice to favor expanded government services when you get down to specific examples.

Conservative bloggers are so far largely silent on the poll findings. Is that because they too believe the numbers are an indictment of President Bush and Republican governing philosophy? One would assume that if Democrats controlled the White House, conservative bloggers would be heralding these numbers in a similar fashion comparable to their liberal counterparts today.

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.

Chuck Todd over at NBC's First Read outlined the electoral map match-ups as they stand today in the possible general election match-ups. Both scenarios show a race that will likely be very close, maybe even tied when all is said and done. It also illustrates why it has been so difficult for either Clinton, McCain or Obama to convincingly make the case that they are the "most electable" candidate. Here's the standings, as Todd sees them:

Obama vs. McCain
Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, WA (168 electoral votes)
Lean Obama:  NJ, MN, OR, WI (42)
Toss-up: CO, IA, MI, MO, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA (112)
Lean McCain: AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, MT, NC (81)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, IN, KS, KY, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (135)

Clinton vs. McCain
Base Clinton: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT (172)
Lean Clinton: AR, MN, OR, WA, WI (44)
Toss-up: FL, IA, MI, NM, NH, OH, PA (101)
Lean McCain: CO, LA, MO, NV, VA (47)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (174)

Ground Game plays a supporting role in this detailed post from Blog P.I. on the rise of Twitter spam. Long story short, I have a Twitter account that I use occasionally to promote Ground Game posts and other items. I have a small list of friends and colleagues who follow that account. But over the past few weeks, I have received about two dozen unsolicited "followers," all named after presidential candidates, followed by a numerical identifier, i.e. "RudyGiuliani52 is now following you on Twitter." Blog P.I. adds:

You know, if these were simply attached to RSS feeds and genuine aggregators of political news, I wouldn’t mind so much. Yes, the aggressive, untargeted following is certainly annoying. But these accounts do not drive traffic to the sites where the words originated. This also makes the creator’s intent all the more inscrutable; they aren’t saying anything, they aren’t promoting anything, and they aren’t updated by hand. The only thing it’s good for, maybe, is souring users on Twitter.