From The Hotline Latest Edition for Friday, April 18,2008

BLOGOMETER

More Debate Fallout

Fri. Apr. 18, 2008


The backlash to the ABC News debate in the liberal blogosphere continues, as bloggers excoriate George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson for their performances as debate moderators. Bloggers are particularly angry with Stephanopoulos for asking Obama a question about Bill Ayers that conservative talk show host Sean Hannity had urged him to ask the day before (although Stephanopoulos denies being spoon-fed the question from Hannity).

Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are defending Stephanopoulos and Gibson and are accusing Barack Obama's online supporters of being thin-skinned. They are also raising new questions about Obama's relationship with Ayers, whom they are adding to their list of shady figures (such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef) that comprises "Obama's terrorist and communist fan club". It is clear that righty bloggers intend to maintain a steady drumbeat about these associates and admirers of Obama in order to make more Americans uncomfortable (to put it mildly) about his candidacy.

DEM FIELD: Debate Backlash

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Stephanopoulos and Gibson -- and the mainstream media more generally -- for last night's debate:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths. [...] ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country."

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "[This] was probably the worst performance by 'moderators' in a presidential debate. Ever. It really was that bad, and we cannot let that happen again where Democratic positions are under relentless attack by the moderators without a Republican candidate on stage. It wasn't a debate, it was an interrogation."

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Last night was a perfect microcosm of how our political process works. The Right creates stupid, petty personality-based attacks to ensure that our elections aren't decided on issues (where they have a decisive disadvantage). Media stars -- some due to sloth, some due to ideology, some due to an eagerness to please the Right and convince them how Good and Fair they are -- eat up the shallow trash they're fed and then spew it out relentlessly, ensuring that our political discourse is overwhelmed by it, our elections dictated by it."

• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "Whew! What a miserable night for Citizen Charles and Citizen George. These are not dumb fellows, and they didn't fail to prepare for the debate. Obviously, they worked hard to develop such intensively emotional, biased, hostile questions, and they were very focused on avoiding the important issues that will shape the future of the republic for the next generation."

• Atrios: "There are genuine nonpersonality differences between these candidates which moderators who had any idea what they were talking about could have elicited. But when Charlie Gibson is a Laffer loving wingnut whose heart bleeds for the capital gains earnings of $200,000+ earners, and Snuffleupagus is a Sean Hannity sock puppet, that's not the debate we're going to get."

DEM FIELD II: Hannity's Providing The Questions At A Dem Debate?

Liberal bloggers continue to decry the fact that Stephanopoulos asked Obama a question about Ayers that may have been given to him by conservative radio host Sean Hannity. As Think Progress' Faiz Shakir reports:

"[Tuesday] night's ABC News Democratic presidential candidates debate was co-moderated by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, but the unseen influence of Fox News' Sean Hannity was also on stage. Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama's connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this. [...] In the debate last night, Stephanopoulos asked a question that mirrored almost word-for-word what Hannity pressed him to ask."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Well, we just went from the worst debate ever to, I think, a full-fledged PR disaster for ABC generally, and for Stephanopoulos personally. I mean, conspiring with Sean Hannity on the best way to do an 'I gotcha' on Obama, and then doing exactly what he told you to do?"

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "When Hannity is feeding Stephanopoulos ideas for debate questions, you know there's a problem."

• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Stephanopoulos received his debate coaching from none other than Sean Hannity -- not exactly who you turn to for advice on honestly assessing a candidates' beliefs."

• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Bad enough that the questions were trivial -- even more notable was that it seemed as though they had been concocted by right-wing talk-show hosts, since they all were built out of right-wing talking points. And well, whaddya know? [...] There's no small irony in Sean Hannity demanding to know about Obama's supposed unsavory connections to people who once were radical terrorists. Sean Hannity, the onetime friend of Hal Turner. Turner, you'll recall, has made something of an ugly name for himself in recent years with his frequent calls for the assassination of various figures, including judges overseeing the cases of white supremacists and various members of Congress."

DEM FIELD III: Boy, George...

Meanwhile, Stephanopoulos "denied he'd been spoon-fed the question by Fox News host Sean Hannity": "We have been researching this for a while. Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it's being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election."

Aravosis slams Stephanopoulos' response:

"[So] the Stephanopoulos standard for questioning a candidate is what issues the bad guys will raise against that candidate in the fall. (Though, using this standard, it's odd that Stephanopoulos didn't ask Hillary anything about Monica Lewinsky last night...). Okay, I'm game. McCain is going on Stephanopoulos' show this Sunday, so I'm hoping Stephanopoulos will be pushing McCain hard on the following issues [...]:

1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain's second wife. America deserves answers.

2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?

3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. [...]"

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman criticizes the Ayers question: "It is patently absurd to believe that Barack Obama or any candidate for President in either party has political allegiance to 1960s group of domestic terrorists. But the truth in this situation did count for much, unfortunately. Stephanopoulos' question was the type of media stink bomb that fouls a candidate in the asking. Obama's answer, no matter how quick or good, could not have changed the outcome."

DEM FIELD IV: Take A Chill Pill, Netroots

Conservative bloggers are mocking their liberal counterparts for reacting so strongly to the ABC debate:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "To appreciate the dishonesty of [the liberal blogosphere's] reaction, ask yourself this: If Gibson and Stephanopoulos had spent the first 45 minutes raking Hillary over the coals about Tuzla, Whitewater, Monicagate, and whatever else they could scrounge, would there be similarly high dudgeon about the dearth of 'real' issues broached? Of course not. There'd be a few 'gee, rough night for Hillary' reactions, a few 'good, maybe this will convince her to get out' responses, the obligatory uproar from Jeralyn Merritt, Taylor Marsh, and the rest of the left's dwindling pro-Clinton wing, and that'd be that. It's entirely a means-ends analysis. ABC hurt the Savior, which is, and can only be, unfair."

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Have some pride, people. Republicans stand up to this beating and worse every single day of the election cycle. The fact that Obama can't, and his own supporters know it well enough to shame themselves with this ridiculous display aimed at icing future debate moderators, is a pleasing thought indeed for Republicans."

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The louder Obama's fans whine, the more obvious it is that their candidate bombed and that tough questions are Obama's kryptonite. It would be best for the Obama supporters to say it doesn't matter, they're all only words, words, words. Oh, wait: maybe not..."

• Michelle Malkin: "The left-wing anti-patriots at MoveOn.org, who didn't think twice about handing jihadists potent ammunition the day before the sixth anniversary of 9/11 with their despicable attack on Gen. [David] Petraeus, are now worried about actions that 'hurt the country.' Dangerous, perilous, damaging, harmful actions…like having a Democrat debate moderated by journalists who aren't complete and total sycophants."

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Who would have thought that Gibson and Stephanopoulos would serve as the unwitting mouthpieces of the unsophisticated, 'small town'-type folk like me -- who actually care about what our prospective presidents think about the people they hope to lead and about the religious leaders they follow, on the one hand, or about their ability to give an honest accounting of their lives and experiences, on the other? Who knew that representatives of the MSM might finally catch on that, for the 'bitter' people in America, these issues are more than just 'distractions,' and that character counts?"

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Look, I don't think that this was the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It could have been better. But it was not the forensic train wreck that some are making it out to be. The Obama people ado not appear to have liked how the debate went. This is no surprise; Obama did poorly in last night's debate. At the same time, they should not be surprised that Obama was a target of a lot of the questions last night. This is what comes with being the front runner, after all."

CLINTON: Don't Come Around Here No More, Hillary

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Clinton for her attacks on Obama during the ABC News debate:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Clinton has chosen her side, and it's of the corporatist status quo. That's no surprise. There's a reason she's in the leadership of the DLC. She may think that economically distressed Americans are 'optimistic' and 'resilient' and oh-so freakin' happy to lose their jobs and face few economic opportunities. All she's had to do is throw in a nice dose of San Francisco bashing (you know, the place where those gays live!), and her message is now indistinguishable from John McCain or Sean Hannity."

• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "The most disappointing aspect to this [George W.] Bush Republican script is that Senator Clinton is pandering to it, and her recent performances are almost as transparently bad as the George & Charlie Puppet Theater [Wednesday] night. [...] For Senator Clinton, it's about winning no matter what. She has abandoned her integrity in favor of Republican tactics. I fail to see anything which is admirable or redeeming when Senator Clinton invokes 'San Francisco' (which is Republican code for 'gay'); or when she implies that Senator Obama isn't ready to protect us from the evildoers; or when she chugs a shot and beer in plain view of an entire nation of impressionable teen girls."

• Aravosis: "ABC, with Hillary's help, has now made yet another right-wing talking point a legitimate point of public debate about Obama. If this keeps up, every Swift Boat style attack against Obama will be considered a serious issue by the media, all because Hillary made it so. [...] Hillary isn't going to win, [Howard] Dean knows it, we all know it. The only question is whether she's going to take all of us down with her."

Meanwhile, DHinMI repeats his call for Clinton to leave the race: "The voters have demonstrated a clear preference for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. She cannot overcome his lead. Hillary Clinton acknowledges that Barack Obama can beat John McCain. Thus, she's lost, and she has no argument that it's a threat to Democrats to have Barack Obama as our nominee. Therefore, there's no reason for Hillary Clinton to continue her campaign."

CLINTON II: Spare Us The Fake Outrage, Obamafans!

Pro-Clinton bloggers are angrily denouncing a post by Obama supporter Moulitsas, who approvingly quoted the following comment (written by Daily Kos commenter Theran):

"At some point the concept of 'Republicans will do X' has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more."

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld -- they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill [Clinton] and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Clinton is no longer considered a Democrat by many Obama supporters because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama. The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle."

• Armstrong elaborates: "This notion that Clinton, or her campaign, meets the criteria of Republicanism, in its battle against Obama, is by far the worst development of the nomination battle. [...] I get calling someone a DINO because they vote Republican, or tear down the Democratic brand, but that's hardly the case with the two centrist-voting Democrats we have left that are both partisans...You don't call another Democratic candidate a Republican just of the campaign tactics they are using. [...] Look, if Obama can win by taking the high road, more power to him, but if Clinton wins by taking the hard road, then more power to her. But be honest, Obama would use whatever technique it takes to win this nomination, so would Clinton. Please spare us the fake outrage over party credentials. Its a loser."

CLINTON III: There's A Line, And She Crossed It

Obama's online supporters are responding to Armstrong's and Big Tent Democrat's arguments:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I wouldn't use the words of a Daily Kos commenter Markos points to, namely that the commenter no longer considers Hillary Clinton a Democrat as a result of her use of right wing driven attacks against Barack Obama. What I would say, however, is this: Clinton is not beyond reproach. [...] No one faults Clinton for running a strenuous campaign for the nomination. However, there are lines in politics. And when a race gets to the point where one candidate is much more likely to secure the nomination than the other (I'm talking greater than 3:1), the candidate less likely to win the nomination must begin to seriously think about the type of campaign that he or she is willing to wage and, moreover, if that campaign will hurt the party in the long run."

• BooMan: "I agree that it's kind of stupid to not consider Hillary Clinton a Democrat anymore. [...She] is still safely on Democratic ground when it comes to policy. Where she is starting to resemble a Republican is in her campaign rhetoric and tactics, and her indifference to what most of us 'Obamaphiles' like to call 'The Math'. [...] She's saying that the guy that has about a 98% chance of being our standard bearer in the fall is less qualified to be president than John McCain, and suggesting that he should quit his church, and linking him to [Louis] Farrakhan and the Weathermen and Hamas. [...] These are slimy, dishonest, right-wing attacks."

• BooMan continues: "There is a major element both within the Clinton campaign and within the Hill-o-sphere of a 'we're here to save you from yourselves mentality'. It's an article of faith that Obama cannot withstand these arbitrary and unfair attacks on his character so the Clintons are duty bound to use these arbitrary and unfair attacks as a kind of preemptive measure. Sorry, but even if that were true, the time to make that case was before Obama built an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegates. Right now, good Democrats should seriously consider spending their time defending Obama from these attacks, especially if they think they are so potentially lethal. And that's where some Democrats are beginning to look at some Clinton supporters with a jaundiced eye. What exactly explains your continued support for your candidate under these circumstances? Farrakhan? Hamas? You are a willing participant in this?"

OBAMA: Let's Talk About The Weather..

Many conservative bloggers are discussing Obama's links with Ayers:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "We have at least a political friendship that began in 1995, and they became professional colleagues in 1999. More details will certainly emerge if the MSM decides that the Democratic front-runner's association with a terrorist matters to voters. [...] When will the MSM get around to a sustained examination of Obama's ideological history? Thus far the farthest left major party candidate in American political history has received the least scrutiny of any modern near nominee of a major party."

• RedState's Soren Dayton: "These terrorists are, to quote a release from the Obama campaign 'respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago.' Excuse me, but WTF? Why is Obama defending this? [...] And the Democrats wonder why people care about these 'symbolic issues'?"

OBAMA II: Shady Characters

Many bloggers think Obama's past associations with people like Ayers and Wright make him unfit to be President:

• RedState's Erick Erickson sees Obama as a dangerous figure: "We have well documented Barack Obama's Marxist underpinnings. His wife, his preacher, his mother, his father, his childhood mentor, and his neighbor Bill Ayers all have underlying beliefs in marxism. They share a disdain for capitalism, capital, and job providers. They are all swept up in the call for social change. And Obama has been right there with them. [...] Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife are often played down by the Obama campaign, but they are only disputed by Obama's chief strategist. In fact, Obama's present successful political career was started in Bill Ayers's living room."

• Erickson continues: "At some point we should be concerned that so many enemies of this country, enemies who are proud to be enemies of this country, and enemies of liberty are supporting a man like Barack Obama. Why do they support him? What do they see in Barack Obama? All I can think of is they see an inexperienced politician who has already been raised in their marxist world view who has already signaled his intentions to surrender America abroad and defeat individualistic American independence at home. That would be the only way to rid this nation of what Obama's wife views as its 'mean spirited' nature. But are we ready to elect a man our enemies see as a man with a strong propensity to actively *strive* to take us out of first place?"

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "What is it about Obama that attracts Hamas, Communists, and domestic terrorists? [...] Is it that they think he's amenable to their agenda? Or do they just see him as 'green' and inexperienced and malleable? The question is: Do Americans want someone who -- at best -- is obviously viewed as so naive and easily influenced running the show, really?"

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "These aren't just 'associations'; these are associates in every sense of the word. As the candidate who wants to criticize the strings attached to his opponents through years in the Beltway, he had better expect the same kind of scrutiny for his connections during years in the hard-Left movement in Chicago. And for a man who asks us to trust his judgment without having established any kind of track record, it's almost laughable that he finds our questions about his judgment in selecting his political associates out of bounds."

OBAMA III: You Gotta Get That Dirt Off Your Shoulder

Jay-Z fans in the liberal blogosphere were delighted by Obama's response to the ABC debate. As The Nation's Ari Melber explains:

"Barack Obama is clearly taking that abysmal ABC News debate in stride. He told his supporters not to fret about all the 'textbook Washington' drama on Thursday, recounting the superficial moderators and Hillary Clinton's attempts to 'twist the knife' on trivial issues. Then Obama made pop cultural history, miming the rapper Jay-Z's iconic hand signal to 'brush the dirt' off his shoulders. That popular youth gesture grew out of 'Dirt Off Your Shoulder,' a hit song in 2003. As Wikipedia explains, it refers to 'getting enemies off your chest by brushing your shoulders off.'"

• Think Progress' Spencer Ackerman links to the video of Obama's response and writes: "Starting at 2:20, bear witness to perhaps the coolest subliminal cultural reference in the history of American politics. Brooklyn, stand up!"

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "This business is pretty cool. Somewhere between a dog whistle to the kids and a reverse Sister Souljah."

• Radar's Neel Shah: "Obama still feelin' like a pimp, goes and brushes shoulders off. [...This is] almost enough to help him regain the street cred he lost after trying to bust a move on Ellen."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Left-Wing Noise Machine

NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro are impressed by the liberal blogosphere's forceful response to the ABC debate:

"Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday's debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt. And as the Politico's Ben Smith pointed out yesterday, it's also what the GOP would face in the general election, especially if Obama is nominee. The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don't forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice."

LEST WE FORGET: Putin Likes All Russian Women

Russian President Vladimir Putin denied rumors that he plans to marry "a former Olympic gymnast less than half his age":

"'There is not a single word of truth' to the report, Putin said. [...] 'In other publications of the same type, the names of other successful, beautiful young women from Russia are mentioned,' he said. 'I think it won't be unexpected if I say that I like them all -- just as I like all Russian women.'"

Radar's Alex Balk:

"Pausing to reflect for a moment, Putin then added, 'Kazan girls really knock me out. They leave the West behind. And Moscow girls make me sing and shout. That Izhevsk's always on my mind.'"

To read the unabridged edition of the Blogometer, visit http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com. Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.