From The Hotline Latest Edition for Wednesday, April 30,2008

BLOGOMETER

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

Wed. Apr. 30, 2008


Following Barack Obama's repudiation of Jeremiah Wright, political bloggers are reacting as one might expect. Most liberal bloggers are praising Obama's statement while recognizing that it must have been difficult for him to publicly denounce his former pastor. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are arguing that Obama's remarks were "too little, too late" and that Obama cannot possibly distance himself from someone whom he knew for 20 years.

A growing number of conservative bloggers appear to be convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable foe than Obama, and many are arguing that she may yet win the Dem nod. Liberal bloggers certainly don't appear ready to embrace Clinton as their nominee, however. While they've been criticizing Obama lately for appearing on FOX News Sunday, they've been slamming Clinton over the past 24 hours for her support of the gas tax holiday (which most of them consider a bad idea).

OBAMA: Your 15 Minutes Are Over, Reverend

While some liberal bloggers have defended Wright, many are furious at him for going on a media blitz:

• Digby: "I have frankly been a little bit confused by the reaction to Reverend Wright's recent comments around the sphere and even here on this blog. I thought most people in the Netroots were big Obama supporters and yet they defend Reverend Wright, which I find rather surprising considering what he did. It's true that after Obama's Philadelphia speech, I too defended Wright's sermons and even got a more positive sense of Barack Obama's worldview as a result of hearing what he'd said and listening to Obama's explanations for them. Other than a vague sense that he was something of a showboater, I was not hostile to to the man. But Wright's latest round of media appearances have not seemed to me to be any kind of defense of liberalism or the black church or even Black Liberation Theology so much as one man's desire to deny a rival his destiny. This was personal and I find it very creepy. [...] Reverend Wright called into question the entire premise of Obama's campaign, a campaign built on changing the very nature of politics, when he said, 'he did what politicians do.' There was no need for him to speak out now except to gin up the controversy at the worst possible time. Any person of sensitivity would have at least waited until this tough, hard fought primary had ended. It was a self-aggrandizing, personal attack and it says something important about the man."

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "While I understood the calls for Obama to throw Wright under the bus, I was impressed that he didn't. But that changed [Monday]. I thought Wright's appearance before the National Press Club, and in particular the Q and A, was just appalling: narcissistic, destructive, and venomous. Part of it was the content: sticking up for [Louis] Farrakhan, for instance. Part of it was the tone (and here I think watching the video makes a big difference: you can't tell how much he's enjoying being the center of attention from the transcript.) But part of it was that I thought it might as well have been calculated to bring Obama down."

• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "I know many liberals might not think that Rev. Wright was much of a problem earlier, because they could argue the snippets used were out of context, and McCain had his own pastor problems as well, but we've already seen how the GOP has generated nasty ads that they are using against him. Think how bad it will be by October. By coming out so visibly now and without restraint, didn't Rev. Wright understand that this can only hurt Barack Obama because of the sick right wing noise machine and a media that is not interested in covering the policies that will actually affect our lives? It's the 'gotcha' game and he's only feeding the beast."

OBAMA II: Well Done, Barack

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama for repudiating Wright:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "In his Philadelphia speech last month Obama couldn't openly repudiate Wright without risking a negative reaction from voters, especially African Americans, would see him as an ingrate, willing to cast aside people who've become inconvenient. Now, however, as Wright goes around the country performing as a caricature of what many white voters will perceive as 'The Scary Black Man,' Obama has an obligation to repudiate Wright. Failing to repudiate Wright risks allowing the GOP (and until then presumably the Clinton campaign) to use Wright as the Black proxy with which to scare off white voters. [...] As long as Wright continues to blab, Obama not only has the obligation to repudiate him, he has the opportunity. This afternoon, he took advantage of the opportunity."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Wright truly crossed over into cuckoo-land [Monday], saying that our government created AIDS, among other things. That's insane conspiracy talk, and it's race-baiting (white people created AIDS to oppress minorities? -- give me a break). Obama really blasted him this time. Good. I appreciate the position Obama is in. It's difficult to see someone you once respected turn into a crazy man. A craven politician, Hillary comes to mind, would turn on that person (or constituency) in a flash. A normal person, a good Christian, would struggle with the fact that the now-crazy man has done good in his life as well. How do you reconcile the two? Politicians don't. Real men -- and real Christians -- do."

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Barack Obama and his camp made the right political choice in having Barack Obama denounce and reject the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and not just his words) today. This decision was also the right thing to do. What Wright has stated now on numerous occasions, both in the pulpit and elsewhere, is appalling, foolish, offensive, divisive and delusional. Obama should have done this long ago. And while I am sure his Philadelphia speech was lovely, it really was not about what Jeremiah Wright had said and done. Today, finally, Barack Obama addressed the issue of Jeremiah Wright. And he did so quite well."

• Digby feels sorry for Obama: "Clearly [Obama] sees it as a betrayal and a deeply personal one. And so it was. So much so that I felt uncomfortable even watching it. Obama trusted Reverend Wright. As he pointed out, Wright had married him and Michelle [Obama], baptized their children, prayed with them over major events in their lives. Obama was very generous with him in his Philadelphia speech, offering a personal endorsement of his good character. And yet, knowing that Obama is fighting this ridiculous rumor about being a Muslim, Wright shows up at the National Press Club with bodyguards from the Nation of Islam and praises Farrakhan? Outrageous. I watched Obama today and felt very sorry for him on a human level."

• Oliver Willis is satisfied: "It's pretty clear where Obama stands, and the people who are going to keep saying things 'raise questions' are just McCain/Clinton types who are trying to whip up noise."

Not all liberal bloggers were satisfied by Obama's repudation of Wright, however:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama "cav[ed] to right-wing attacks" by repudiating Wright: "This also seems to represent a broader strategic shift in the Obama campaign. First by ending a longstanding boycott of Fox News, and now by denouncing Jeremiah Wright after eloquently defending him just six weeks ago in a speech that was read around the world. The campaign now appears to be caving to right-wing attacks it once parried and refused to back down against. Really, it is kind of sad, since Obama's previous willingness to not throw his allies under the bus in public and to not appear on right-wing propaganda outlets was, in my opinion, a much better example of bringing people together than the new tactics we are witnessing. Right-wing attacks against Jeremiah Wright are actually far more importnat in dividing the country than the likes of Jeremiah Wright himself."

• MyDD's Todd Beeton has concerns about Obama's "fitness to run a general": "There are a couple problems that this press conference aren't likely to assuage. First is Obama's statement that he guesses he didn't know Wright as well as he thought he did. 'The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I had come to know over 20 years.' That's a big problem for someone running on judgment. Secondly, yesterday Obama pointed to Wright's off-message press tour as proof that the his campaign was not managing or coordinating with Wright, I suppose to distance himself from Wright prove to people that he is indeed Obama's former pastor. What is does for me is call into question his fitness to run a general."

OBAMA III: Too Little, Too Late

Conservative bloggers think Obama's repudiation of Wright was insufficient and that Obama cannot possibly distance himself from his pastor of 20 years:

• Glenn Reynolds: "Too little, too late, and too lawyerly. [...] And as I said yesterday, I don't see that Wright has changed. People are just noticing. But is Obama just now noticing?"

• Michelle Malkin: "Try as he might, [Obama] simply cannot disown the un-disownable preacher of hate. That press conference yesterday renders the Philadelphia speech from March null and void. And anyone who fell for the Philadelphia speech (unfortunately, there were several on the right side of the aisle) should feel especially embarrassed today. Try not to be fooled again."

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "So, was Obama just as naive as a child for 20 years, or as disingenuous as any major political figure of the last forty years when he denied knowing the real Pastor Wright this morning? Either way it creates a huge issue for voters. Is Obama a dupe, or just duplicitous? Do you want him in charge of the nation's security, making judgments about our enemies?"

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "When, Barack, when did Reverend Wright no longer act like the guy you knew? When? Was it after or before you named him as your spiritual advisor? At some point in the twenty years of your relationship he apparently changed. Do you really expect us to believe you didn't see the change. Barack Obama was, in fact, still a member of Trinity when Reverend Wright first said the U.S. being behind 9/11. Barack Obama was, in fact, still a member of Trinity when Reverend Wright first said the U.S. invented AIDS to kill black men."

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Even after spending 20 years being friends with Jeremiah Wright and listening to his sermons, Barack Obama assured people that he didn't know about his extreme views and that people were taking Wright's comments out of context. [...] Well now, Wright has come out publicly and affirmed pretty much the worst things that people thought about him. He's anti-white, he's anti-American, and he's a kook. So, Obama's press conference aside, then either (1.) Obama is so dim-witted and such a terrible judge of character that he actually meant what he said and just didn't understand how bad Wright was. [...or] (2.) Obama has known what Wright was all about for the last 20 years, at worst agreed with it and at best wasn't bothered by it, and simply lied because he knew the American people wouldn't support an unpatriotic, racialist candidate who despises white people. Whatever the answer is, it means that Obama isn't fit to be President of the United States."

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The problem for Obama is that his books do not, in fact, support the conclusion that he is entirely out of sympathy with what we now know to be Jeremiah Wright's noxious views. To be sure, Obama has never suggested that the federal government developed the AIDS virus. But Obama's own account of his first encounter with Wright's preaching, as related in his book Dreams From My Father, reveals that Obama knew of Wright's virulent racism from the beginning, and that it was a racist screed by Wright that initially drew Obama to his church. [...] It is hard to see how a candidate who finds inspirational the claim that "white folks' greed runs a world in need" can fully distance himself from Wright's anti-white racism."

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "As I've written before, the common thread that ties Obama's views to Wright's is black liberation theology, which sees the Christian mission as bringing justice to oppressed people through political activism, and emphasizes the racial aspect of oppression. In effect, it is an amalgam of Christianity, radical left-wing ideology, and black militancy. [...] The existence of this common thread does not mean that Obama subscribes to the worst of Wright's views, and I'm confident he does not. But I believe it helps explain why Obama found so many of these views merely 'controversial,' not deplorable."

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "In the absence of a long and productive legislative career, Barack Obama has argued that his decisive advantage over his rivals is not experience, but judgment. Back on March 18, Obama declared that we were being unfair in concluding Jeremiah Wright was 'a crank or a demagogue' because we didn't know him the way Obama did. We were reaching that conclusion based on 'snippets' and 'soundbites,' whereas he could take the full assessment based on a close relationship of 20 years or so. He was, he assured us, in a better position to make a better judgment. Today, Obama tells us, he doesn't really know Jeremiah Wright at all. And now, it seems, we're in better position to make a judgment about Barack Obama."

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Yesterday, Barack Obama tried to put an end to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, and probably at least minimized any impact Wright's future statements might have on the campaign. However, as more comes out from past statements by both Obama and Wright, it will keep the wounds open and call into question Obama's honesty."

OBAMA IV: Nice Job, Media!

Liberal bloggers are slamming the news media for its focus on Wright:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "This sudden obsession with Rev. Wright is, if you can get through the banging-your-head-against-a-wall part of it, fairly amusing. It's like the American media has just discovered -- OMG! Black people! And with religion!? Now, none of these pundits gave a flying, candy-coated damn about some of the most influential preachers in America saying vile, despicable things and being continually rewarded for it with political praise and power. [Pat] Robertson, [Jerry] Falwell, [James] Dobson, [John] Hagee -- there is an entire movement of evangelicals devoted to saying vicious things on national TV under the cloak of religion. [...] Wright's past link with Obama is I think almost secondary, at this point...certain segments of the media seem absolutely giddy at the idea of being able to hold this guy up and examine him, and the Obama connection has given them an 'in' to do it without looking quite as salacious as they would under other circumstances. It's a typical media Shark Attack Week, but with scary black people instead of sharks."

• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President [George W.] Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. [...] All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings."

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald, dripping with sarcasm: "I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we're a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; vested with the ability to command great respect and admiration from the other nations of the world; emancipated from the burdens of war and intractable conflicts which have toppled and destroyed so many other great nations of the past; and, most of all, we're becoming freer and more prosperous by the minute. [...] So it isn't as though we really have anything else to talk about besides Jeremiah Wright. There are some countries in the world -- probably most -- which have so many big problems that they could ill-afford to devote much time and energy to a matter of this sort. Thankfully, the United States isn't one of them. I believe it's critical that we keep that in mind as we discuss him for the next seven months."

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Just to save time, maybe [Obama and Clinton] could each get 'two Reject & Denounce' cards in advance. If I lived in another country.....I'd laugh and laugh at how ridiculous our media is and how bizarre they force campaigns to be. [...] Each election seems to get more critical on issues, yet more trivial on coverage. In the last three weeks the ONLY policy issue that has gotten substantial coverage is the ridiculous idea of a gas-tax holiday."

• Atrios: "This election is going to be much much stupider than the last time. Last time much of the stupid was at least nominally about serious issues, this time it's just all about the stupid."

OBAMA V: Friends Don't Let Friends Go On Fox

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Obama's decision to do an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Rather than try and get Fox to back off a bit, Obama merely gave Fox a propaganda victory and legitimized a network that we've spent several years exposing not as 'fair and balanced', but as an overt extension of the Republican Party. And as for its viewers, 30 minutes of Obama will now compete with six months of non-stop bashing (like this). [...] Stupid move, and in the end, ends up legitimizing the network while they continue spending their every waking moment trashing his very existence."

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Fox News is not a good place to reach Democrats, Independents, or moderates. It is a propaganda outlet directed almost entirely at older, conservative Republicans and exists to give credence to right-wing smears. Much of the blogosphere, led significantly by Obama's example, had been successfully making headway in de-legitimizing the network. Now, Obama seems to have thrown all that away for minimal, if any, gain. Perhaps most depressingly, in what seems like a clear cut case of Dear Leader syndrome, huge numbers of people online seem to back Obama's decision simply because Obama made it. And really, this has nothing to do with a broader principle of 'talking to the other side,' since there are numerous of conservative outlets, such as Rush Limbaugh, where Obama would never appear."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Matt Stoller criticizes the Obama camp's blogger outreach: "All of us have endorsed Obama, and have criticized him over [his FOX appearance], but the reality is that there was no communications with anyone about the decision-making or process that led to him being on Fox News. There is also no messaging around Wright or any other bubbling stories. There is basically no blogger communications going on as far as I can tell, the kind so critical to a good blog strategy like Tim Tagaris ran with the [Ned] Lamont campaign. The Clinton campaign does a much better job, down to little details such as inviting bloggers on press calls. Even the McCain operation, with a much less significant blogosphere on the right, is having McCain out on blogger conference calls. [...] Anyway, it's clear that Obama's campaign has not fixed its relationship with the blogs and the liberal internet space. That is most likely because their new media director, Joe Rospars, is a remarkably skilled logistics operator with limited bandwidth for communications. The Obama campaign could sure use a Peter Daou type. As the general election approaches, it would helpful if this logistical problem was fixed."

Moulitsas agrees: "No doubt, the Obama campaign would be much better off if they had a Peter Daou or Tim Tagaris type aboard."

OBAMA VI: She's Doing It Too!

BooMan defends Obama's FNS appearance, noting that Clinton will make her first-ever appearance on The O'Reilly Factor tonight: "I think the outcry in the blogosphere about Barack Obama appearing (after a 700+ day boycott) on Fox News Sunday is one of the most stunning displays of self-indulgent foolishness since the Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared at the National Press Club. Yes, I agree that a 100% boycott will marginalize FOX News and undermine their credibility, and eventually their audience. But they do carry the highest ratings in cable news and Obama's opponent intends to take advantage of it. [...] In the long run, Democrats need to come together and show a united front against FOX News. But there can't be a unilateral boycott by one candidate if another candidate is going to use the network's highest rated and most disreputable show to reach out to voters."

Other liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton for going on Bill O'Reilly's show:

• Moulitsas mocks Obama supporters who are defending the IL senator's appearance on FOX News Sunday: "So Hillary Clinton will go on Bill O'Reilly's show on Wednesday. But it's good! Because Obama supporters told me that going on right-wing propaganda outlets is a great idea, joining such luminaries as Lanny Davis, Joe Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, and Harold Ford."

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I am with Kos, Fox should NEVER be legitimized. Obama was wrong to go on Fox and so is Clinton."

•

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, who supports Clinton, disagrees: "I think it's fine. This is about winning an election and convincing voters. [Clinton] should make her case wherever she can. I disagree with the theory that people shouldn't go on Fox. I've appeared on their network dozens of times if not more as a legal analyst. My view is if I can convince one person of my position, or even to make them think about it, it's worth it."

CLINTON: Gas Tax Demagoguery?

Liberal bloggers were already angry with Clinton for joining McCain in supporting a gas tax holiday, but they're even angrier now that Clinton is launching a TV ad attacking Obama for opposing the holiday:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It's worse when the candidate knows it's a bad idea. It's worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it's the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what we have in the case of Hillary Clinton and the 'gas-tax holiday.' [...] I really don't think Clinton wants to win this way. She's smarter and better than cheap pandering. Worse, all of this reinforces Obama's argument that he's more honest, principled, and willing to tell people the truth, even when they don't want to hear it. Obama wants to present himself as a 'different kind of politician,' and Clinton's gas-tax attacks are making it easier for him to do so."

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "This [is] fantastical pandering from Hillary Clinton. [...] I'd say there's approximately a zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton or John McCain actually believe this is good policy. It would increase oil company profits, it would make hardly a dent in the price of gasoline, it would encourage more summertime driving, and it would deprive states of money for transit projects. Their staff economists know this perfectly well, and so do they. But they don't care. It's a way to engage in some good, healthy demagoguery, and if there's anything that the past couple of months have reinforced, it's the notion that demagoguery sells. Boy does it sell."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Now [Clinton]'s lighting in to Barack Obama for having the correct position on John McCain's stupid idea. This is basically the environment/energy/transportation equivalent equivalent of Obama's anti-mandate fliers and it makes it very hard to imagine that she's prepared to try to do anything about climate change. [...] What's needed are measures that can increase the short-run elasticity of demand. Making federal funds available to increase the frequency of bus service and/or reduce fares to give people better alternatives to driving might work. Or some kind of program designed to facilitate/encourage the trading in of inefficient vehicles for ones that don't guzzle as much gas. I've heard over and over again about Clinton's vast powers of wonkery and incredibly command of policy, so maybe she should show us some with some creative thinking on a tough problem rather than mindlessly parroting John McCain's proposals."

• hilzoy: "[Clinton] proposes to divert money from the government to those same oil companies, while saving consumers next to nothing. [...] Of course, Clinton also proposes to pay for the lost revenues from the gas tax with her new windfall profits tax on oil companies. Essentially, she wants to divert money from the government to the oil companies by suspending the gas tax, and then take it back again by introducing a different tax. McCain, by contrast, is willing to let the oil companies keep their extra profits, deficit or no deficit. [...] In a sane world, Obama would get credit for doing the right thing here. His unwillingness to go along with this transparent pander is surely a better indication of his character than his taste in lapel pins."

Meanwhile, Stoller thinks it's "time to get a killer instinct against Clinton": "Clinton has become more conservative of late, throwing away her policy-integrity just to pick off a few more older white voters with a gas holiday scam. [...] I actually think her plan could easily be turned into one that is evil through political machinations, ie. a gas tax holiday goes through while the oil company profits tax is stripped out, but the point is that Clinton is running as a full-blown conservative. And why shouldn't she do that and go on O'Reilly? We have rejected her, so she has to find her votes somewhere. Nevertheless, it's time to recognize that she is an opponent of liberals, and act that way. Moveon and SEIU are probably the only groups with the capacity to do this, but basically, the Bosnia sniper fire lie needs to be replayed over and over in Indiana, and then spliced with this tax scam and the quote that her plan will lose 300,000 highway jobs because she will say anything to get elected. Clinton needs to be called out as a liar who is a weak candidate, and it is Obama-supporting Moveon members that could do this. Obviously the group would have trouble since many of its members do like Clinton, but honestly, we need a killer instinct here and not more praise of Obama. [...] Clinton is very weak, she's come after liberals, and we should just put her away. And if we can't, let's figure out how to fix this institutional lack of a killer instinct."

Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Stoller's assertion that Clinton "is running as a full-blown conservative": "More inanity from the 'Netroots.' [...] What a dopey thing to write. While I agree with Stoller's criticism of Clinton on the gas tax holiday, see [Paul] Krugman, some bloggers seem incapable of stopping at legitimate criticism and must jump the shark to foolish inaccuracies. Just dumb stuff."

CLINTON II: In Her Defense...

Pro-Clinton bloggers are defending Clinton's support of the gas tax holiday:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The gas tax holiday [is] the type of popular idea that Republicans continually cream progressives on with the working class. McCain came out for the typical Republican position of depleting tax revenue by having a 'gas tax holiday' and Obama came out against it, mocking the idea as a gimmick, by saying it would only save individuals $20 a month. First, by making the claim that this only saves individuals $20 bucks a month, Obama doesn't realize how out-of-touch and elitist that sounds to the average low-wage earner who would view it as their 'best day in weeks' to find a Jackson laying on the sidewalk. [...] There is some hand-wringing done by some liberals over Clinton's proposal to 'use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer.' To me it sounds like a good way to take off the table a popular idea and sync it with an equally popular idea, and maybe even make the tax code more progressive while we are at it. The average liberal arguing rationally about this issue just does not get how powerful a political issue that gas prices are right now, and how damaging it is for Obama to be on the wrong side of the issue. This isn't a rational argument."

• Merritt: "If I were a typical consumer and one who doesn't know from oil, energy or economics because I get up, get the kids ready for school, go to work, come home, make dinner, clean up, do homework and go to bed, I'd want a suspension of the gas tax so I can pay less at the pump -- even for the summer. [...] I'd probably be thinking like Scarlett O'Hara: I'll worry about the planet tomorrow, today it's about me. I'd vote for the candidate who promises me some relief now."

CLINTON III: Pansy-gate?

Several bloggers are angry that NC Gov. Mike Easley said that Clinton "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy" while endorsing her. These bloggers view "pansy" as an anti-gay slur and are upset that Clinton laughed in response to Easley's comments:

• Aravosis: "In case anyone has been living under a rock, pansy is slang for 'fag.' [...] So, Hillary isn't gay? Or Hillary isn't a weak gay? And of course, gays are something bad that need to be avoided. Now why would Hillary embrace gay-bashing to help her campaign? [...] Actually, she started subtly gay-bashing a while back. Remember all of her 'San Francisco' references? Then there was her top aides calling Obama supporters 'latte sippers' who only care about 'feelings' (i.e., they're a bit effeminate and effete). (Then again, look who's advising her.) It's ironic. Hillary is afraid to use the word 'gay,' and gets visibly uncomfortable when answering questions about gay issues. But using slurs for 'fag' doesn't bother her in the least. Hillary and her people will say anything to get elected. And if that means gay-bashing to win the bubba vote, then so be it. And her people wonder why so many have turned on Hillary in the past few months."

• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "She's on O'Reilly and her surrogate is accusing her opponent of being a 'pansy'. Classy -- but vintage Clinton. Never miss an opportunity to exploit homophobia. Remember DOMA? Remember doubling the discharges from the military? Remember inaction on AIDS? Remember the Clintons' using anti-gay marriage ads in the South in 1996? And yet the gays keep coming back for more. I don't understand why. I really don't."

• Firedoglake's TeddySanFran: "North Carolina Governor Mike Easley tainted his endorsement of Senator Clinton when he used a common gay slur at the end of his riff on how much he loves strong women. [...] Can we get a little 'denounce and reject' action from Hillary Clinton about Governor Easley's use of the word pansy at her endorsement party?"

CLINTON IV: Pick Hillary, Dem Superdelegates!

Conservative bloggers continue to argue that Clinton would be a stronger nominee than Obama:

• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "Assuming that the pundits knew what they were talking about, many Republicans started gearing up for a fall general election campaign against Obama. But now that Hillary's won Pennsylvania -- and now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's turned into an Eagleton-style PR nightmare for Obama -- those assumptions are starting to look a little less certain. [...] How serious is the threat of a Hillary comeback? Rush Limbaugh today called a temporary pause in 'Operation Chaos,' his effort to push Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries. Limbaugh says Obama may be so damaged by the Wright fallout that it's no longer certain that Hillary would be the weaker Democratic candidate in the general election. If Rush sees it that way, might the super-delegates start seeing it, too?"

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The premise and the conclusion of the 'Hillary, Get Out Now!' crowd is misguided (unless you are rooting for a McCain win). She can certainly win the nomination -- the superdelegates just need some steel in their spines. And more importantly, she would likely be the more effective nominee. Democrats concerned about winning the White House might reconsider giving the nomination to the guy who is losing races by double digits."

RedState's Mark Kilmer thinks Obama will still win the Dem nod even though Clinton would be a stronger nominee: "[Clinton] is probably the Democrat with the best chance to defeat the war hero during wartime, but she is not going to be the nominee. Period. The superdelegates won't be seen to 'steal the election from Obama,' as that will bring us riots in Denver amongst the delegates, not just the lefty protesters outside."

MCCAIN: Quit Yer Bellyachin'

Liberal bloggers continue to mock the RNC for protesting the DNC's anti-McCain ad, which criticizes the GOP candidate for advocating a 100-year troop presence in Iraq:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "It really is too rich. The Republican Party, who has spent years either sponsoring or cheering on ads that relied on distortions or outright lies to win elections, are outraged that the Democratic National Committee dares to use facts in an ad about John McCain."

• Willis: "Who knew that the RNC would bust out the wahmbulance so soon in the 2008 campaign. [...] The ad hits a nerve. And I hope it keeps doing so (I gave to the DNC for the first time in years in response to it). [...] The RNC wants a new standard for campaign ads: Don't run ads against Republicans if you're going to use their actual words."

• Moulitsas: "Hey, did you hear that 71-year-old McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years? If he got his way, we'd be in Iraq on his 171st birthday. What I don't understand is why pointing this out drives the right-wing insane. It's not like anyone is putting words in McCain's mouth."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Growing Fears

TPM's Josh Marshall:

"As I've mentioned before, one thing running TPM affords us is a barometer, a unique window into the collective minds of the different candidates' supporters. Those most apt to hit the panic button are often those most ready to hit the send button. So it's important not to over-interpret the evidence. But we do seem to have come to some sort crisis of confidence for a number of Obama supporters. It all seems to have come together in the last few days, even the last 48 hours. Certainly Pennsylvania has something to do with it; and I think Rev. Jeremiah Wright's new kick Obama in groin-athon is playing a big role too. Perhaps yesterday's SurveyUSA poll showing Obama still markedly behind in Indiana is somewhere in there as well. There's very little I've seen from this admittedly fragmentary sample that shows Obama supporters buying into the critique of Obama, more a sense of exhaustion and frustration or fear that he can't get the onslaught to stop or isn't responding to it vocally or forcefully enough."

LEST WE FORGET: Dilbert Makes His Presidential Prediction

Scott Adams:

"Here's the way I think the election is going to go down. Obama will get nominated, and polls will start to show he will get 95% of the African-American vote. This will frighten all the racists who hadn't planned to vote, and get them to the polling places, thus handing the election to John McCain, even if he is only being kept alive by machines at that point. Here's a little unscientific survey question of my own:

1. Do you personally know anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim?

2. Do you personally know anyone who suspects Obama might secretly hate America and is running for President to destroy it from within?

I know registered voters in both of those categories. That's why your next president will be named McCain. That's just a prediction, not a preference."

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