From The Hotline Latest Edition for Wednesday, May 7,2008

BLOGOMETER

A Critical Mass?

Wed. May 7, 2008


Following Barack Obama's decisive NC win and Hillary Clinton's narrow IN victory, liberal bloggers are more convinced than ever that Obama will be the nominee, and they're pleased that prominent pundits are finally starting to agree with them. Many bloggers are chastising the media for taking such a long time to acknowledge what they've long considered obvious -- namely, that the delegate math all but guaranteed Obama's eventual victory. Others are discussing Rush Limbaugh's (potential) role in Clinton's IN victory and repeating their criticism of Clinton's efforts to court conservative voters.

Conservative bloggers, many of whom have been talking up Clinton's chances lately, are also acknowledging that Obama will most likely win the Dem nod. However, they're emphasizing the racial and economic divides within the Dem electorate and arguing that Obama is a weak nominee. While Clinton doesn't look likely to quit anytime soon, bloggers appear ready for the general election to begin.

DEM FIELD: It's Over

Liberal bloggers are declaring that Obama is all but certain to win the Dem nod:

• 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 [Jeremiah] Wright and arugula and whatever. Those attacks are not working. Obama's wins tonight will net him a bunch of superdelegates, too. [...] Fact is, Obama is ahead even with Michigan and Florida included, and even if he receives zero delegates from Michigan."

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It's been pretty clear for over a month that Hillary's only chance to win was to hope that Obama got hit by a meteor or something. In the end, though, he got hit by several meteors and it still didn't knock him out. Short of Obama literally keeling over from a stroke, I'm not sure what Hillary has left to hope for."

• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Tonight, I think, marks the end of the Clinton campaign. I mean, it's been over for some time, but tonight sucked the wind out of her rationale for staying in. [...] Obama's floor isn't falling out -- he regained momentum in a working class state like Indiana."

Longtime Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan agrees: "When you take a couple of steps back, you realize the astonishing success of [Obama's] movement. In the last month, every brutal guilt-by-association smear has been thrown at him and the Clintons have been reduced to hoping that Rush Limbaugh will turn out their voters. [...] He has somehow endured and survived and in North Carolina has won what looks like a stunning margin of victory. And when you look at the states that Clinton is, er, clinging to: Obama has gained among her demographic base from Ohio to Pennsylvania to Indiana. She's going backward. The Clintons will have to realize some day that their time is over. [Obama] has won this nomination, whether they try to steal it from him or not."

DEM FIELD II: You Ain't Seen Bouncin' Back

Liberal bloggers are particularly impressed by Obama's ability to withstand the toughest few weeks of his campaign:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "We got nothing but Wright 24/7 for over a month, and Clinton lost ground to Obama while he gained among women and whites and all those demographics that supposedly would be spooked off by the scary black preacher and the stupid 'bitter' manufactured outrage."

• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Barack Obama is back. The results on Tuesday did not provide the 'game changer' Hillary Clinton so desperately needed. Instead, Obama built on his leads in delegates and the popular vote. [...] In Indiana, Obama improved his support across several key demographics, despite a bruising month of attacks on his pastor, patriotism and populism. Compared to Ohio and Pennsylvania, he generally drew more votes from white women, Catholics, gun owners, households earning under $50,000 annually, voters prioritizing the economy, and voters without a college degree."

• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Ultimately, the fact that Senator Obama won NC and came damn close [in] Indiana despite all of the horseshit he's faced in last six weeks is a truly remarkable thing. Senator Obama pushed through and managed to reclaim momentum against the most popular Democratic brand in the world. And now, he's going to be widely regarded as the presumptive nominee."

• Ezra Klein: "Coming off the rough few weeks Obama has had (gas tax, Wright, bittergate, Pennsylvania, etc), this looks pretty bad for Clinton. She needed to cement impressions of his weakness and her comeback by burying Obama in Indiana and hold his margin to low single digits in North Carolina. Instead, he's held her in Indiana and [exceeded] expectations in North Carolina."

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "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."

DEM FIELD III: What Took You So Long, Pundits?

Like many liberal bloggers, Open Left's tremayne noticed that the tone of the media coverage shifted last night: "Although many of us have argued for months that delegate math made Barack Obama's victory nearly inevitable, this point has taken a long time to penetrate the traditional media narrative. Sure, some big media voices made this point, but math is rather boring compared to the drama of a 'candidate on the ropes,' a feisty and unpredictable minister, a 'tenacious fighter,' etc. And besides, a close race sells papers and helps cable talk show ratings. [...] So, how do we know the race is over? The math argument has penetrated the media narrative in a way it hasn't before tonight. The media didn't even portray this as a split decision, one for Obama and one for Clinton. It was clear to almost everyone that Obama would pad both his delegate lead and popular vote lead tonight. [...] Although 'nothing changed tonight' as Chris [Bowers] noted, there is a perception among MSM that something changed. It could be the math argument is now unassailable (given the small number of delegates left) or it could be they've wrung all the rating points they can out of Clinton-Obama and now it is time to make some money on McCain-Obama."

Many liberal bloggers are exasperated that it took the media this long to acknowledge that Obama is the likely nominee:

• Yglesias: "Tim Russert just said 'we now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be.' I certainly agree with that, but I do wonder why it's just now dawning on the TV talking heads. March 4 was Clinton's chance to make up the ground she lost in February, and she wasn't able to do it. We knew as of March 5 who the nominee was going to be."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The media [has] finally turned on her. It's over. It's finally freaking over. I say this because the race was over 2 months ago. But the media kept it alive by pretending as though Hillary had a chance, when they knew she didn't."

• Bowers: "Fundamentally, nothing changed in the campaign tonight. The popular vote and delegate margin are basically the same as they were before Pennsylvania. If you were following the campaign closely, you knew it wouldn't change, and that all but a handful of delegates are up for grabs before any given primary night. Obama was always going to win at least 61 delegates in North Carolina, and at least 32 in Indiana. The only question was whether he would win two or three more in each state. And yet, somehow, it is over because Obama did about 4-5% better than expected in both Indiana and North Carolina, and picked up those two or three delegates in each of those states. And all this in a campaign where over 4,000 delegates are at stake. So, please correct me if I am missing something, but if a shift of 4-5% and two or three delegates in Indiana and North Carolina is enough to end the Democratic nomination, then why didn't anyone frakking tell us that the campaign was so close to ending? Why was there this massive kabuki theater pretending that it was still a close campaign where Clinton had a legitimate chance at winning? Why were Clinton's attacks on Obama repeated again, and again, and again, without anyone mentioning that Clinton was a desperate candidate hanging by a thread who would probably say anything in order to stay afloat?"

• Atrios: "Are we done pretending this race is still going?"

DEM FIELD IV: Credit Where Credit's Due

Most of Clinton's online supporters agree that Obama will probably be the Dem nominee:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "There is no way to spin away what happened tonight: Senator Clinton had a really bad night and Senator Obama had a phenomenal one. It's impossible to overstate the significance of what he accomplished, not only considering what he's overcome over the past three weeks but also considering how decisively he denied Clinton what she needed to continue to have a credible path to the nomination. To put it plainly, tonight was her final shot and she needed to win Indiana by 8-10% and to lose NC by 1-3%; in other words she needed to do about 10% better in each state than she did in order to keep Michigan and Florida relevant and the popular vote in play for superdelegates. Unfortunately, she was unable to do either. [...] Which leads me to the conclusion, sadly, that 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."

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "As for Clinton's chances going ahead, they are minimal. I gave about a 10% shot after she won TX & OH, and upped that to 15% after her PA win, and around 20% a week ago. Now, it's slimmer than ever before. There's little doubt that, considering any marker, Obama is on the path to the nomination, now more than ever. Congrats to all his supporters on a good night. I doubt that Clinton will drop out though. She'll stay in and continue to fight for every delegate. The thinking being, who knows what happens between now and the convention, every delegate counts. She'll rack up a victory in West Virginia in a week, and that'll bring up all the media chatter bugs talking about how Obama doesn't appeal to some regions. She'll win in KY and will try and win OR. Then we'll have the delegate showdown at the end of the month over MI & FL -- that'll be the most contentious. And then its on to few remaining states, PR, where Clinton will likely win, and MT & SD, where Obama will likely win."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat argues that Obama is still a flawed candidate: "Obama won North Carolina because African Americans were 33% of the vote. Obama kept it close in Indiana because African Americans were 15% of the vote. In terms of the electability problems Obama is facing, nothing changed tonight. And West Virginia next week will confirm that. [...] Obama is closer to being the Democratic nominee after tonight. But more than ever, his electability is a question mark. Tonight answered none of the questions that surround Barack Obama's electability."

DEM FIELD V: Unity Ticket? Thanks, But No Thanks

Several liberal bloggers disagreed with DLC chair Harold Ford Jr.'s assertion that an Obama/Clinton ticket is "something that this party is going to have to think very seriously about in the next few weeks."

• Moulitsas: "Harold Ford says Clinton should drop out. She should. He also says there should be an Obama/Clinton ticket. No way."

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'm seeing Harold Ford, Jr. on television talking about how maybe an Obama-Clinton ticket would be the best way for Obama to appeal to white working class voters. I think there's no doubt that enhancing his appeal to white working class voters should be an important considering in thinking about a VP choice. But when you consider all the possibilities, does anyone seriously think that Clinton is the politician with the most appeal to white working class voters? I think the evidence is clear that she has more appeal to them than Barack Obama does but she hardly seems like the best possible choice."

Bowers, on the other hand, thinks a joint ticket may be "unavoidable": "[Clinton] does appeal to a somewhat different set of voters than Obama, and polls make it clear at this point that she is anything but an electoral liability. As far as the attacks that Clinton and Obama have hurled at each other, what better way to invalidate them and wash that all away by joining on a ticket together? At this point, it might be unavoidable."

Beeton, a Clinton supporter, likes the idea: "I still think an Obama/Clinton ticket is operative (not to mention best case scenario at this point) and as I wrote earlier, I think she was signaling to the world with her speech tonight that she'd be open to taking the VP slot. It actually makes sense for many reasons as Andrew Sullivan recently laid out in surprisingly compelling terms. Would it happen in a million years? There are still many that believe not but I'm an optimist at heart."

On the right side of the blogosphere, AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer thinks Obama would be foolish to offer Clinton the VP spot: "The exit polls consistently show that about half of voters in DEMOCRATIC primaries do not think [Clinton] is honest. That is devastating. And it a stigma that will not leave her, because it is an accurate stigma. The truth is, the lady is not a popular candidate. Even with a large number of white workers voting AGAINST Obama as much as for her, she still can't make up any ground. She has had every advantage during this whole primary season, but the only way she can win now is by changing the rules. [...] All of which makes her a loser, through and through. And it also makes her decidedly NOT a good choice for Obama for Veep, because Obama would be foolish to saddle himself with a running mate of whose basic integrity half of his OWN party seriously doubts."

DEM FIELD VI: The Limbaugh Effect

Several liberal bloggers think Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" (in which Limbaugh has encouraged GOPers to vote for Clinton in order to prolong the Dem race) may well have helped Clinton achieve her narrow victory in IN:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary? [...] A sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect. Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said 'neither candidate' shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton. These are not small numbers."

• The Field's Al Giordano: "If anyone thinks that Rush Limbaugh didn't deliver at least 19,000 votes to Senator Clinton in Indiana, I've got a bridge to sell you."

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There's certainly reason to think that spiteful Republican voters went out and voted for Clinton, based on exit polls in North Carolina. [...] Whether the right-wing explicitly brought its people out to vote for Clinton or not is hard to tell, and probably impossible to distinguish from the effects of her hard-edged reactionary right-wing populist rhetoric of late."

• Moulitsas: "The way things are going, Clinton will have won Indiana only because of Rush Limbaugh. That's got to hurt."

DEM FIELD VII: Bring On Barack!

Conservative bloggers are focusing on Obama's weaknesses:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Dems cannot be happy tonight. Hillary shows that Obama is toast in another midwestern state, but she can't overcome a 90% plus African-American vote for Obama in North Carolina, showing that the key portion of the Democratic base is not bailing on Obama. But don't look for Hillary to bail, at least not until the final primaries are held and the Tony Rezko trial verdict in. (Final arguments open Monday.) If Rezko walks, the chance of another devastating revelation about Obama goes down. But if Rezko is convicted and is facing a long stretch in jail, won't he have to think long and hard about naming names in order to limit his years in federal prison? [...] Then there's the slowly spreading impact of Michelle Obama. The more voters hear her rhetoric, the less they are going to want her husband in the White House."

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The Democrats may be inching toward a nominee but its electorate has become entirely polarized on racial and economic lines. While [Clinton] could not break through and change the trajectory of the race, [Obama] has now incontrovertibly lost his appeal with whites, working class voters and seniors -- all groups critical to his chances in November. And in the first row watching this political fight grind toward an end sits McCain with a Cheshire cat grin. The potential for a Democratic nominee who mirrors the appeal of Michael Dukakis grows more certain each week. The possibility that a reinvigorated Clinton (with new found appeal with blue collar voters) could mount a coup and dislodge Obama from his perch becomes more remote, if not impossible. That explains the spring in McCain's step and the smile on his advisors' faces. Not bad for a candidate who hasn't yet broken a sweat."

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Obama's 'egg heads and African-Americans' coalition is still turning out for him, but he's not making significant inroads with the voters he'll need to win the election and the Democrats are getting ever more divided. [...] It's Hillary's supporters, not Obama's, that are more likely to sit at home or vote for McCain in November if their candidate doesn't get the nod. Moreover, Obama is still losing the white vote by a landslide and since, unlike the black vote, white voters are actually up for grabs in November, that's a big deal. Those are very troubling trends for the Democrats indeed, if, as expected, Obama ends up as their nominee."

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I don't honestly believe that half of Clinton voters will vote for McCain. However, if 10 percent of Clinton voters stay home -- a more realistic possibility -- McCain probably wins. As you can see, this is a real problem for Obama."

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Slice up the voters by ideology, 'very conservative' to 'very liberal,' and you find that in both N.C. and Ind., Obama did better the further left the voters were. As E. J. Dionne Jr. just pointed out on NPR[,] that is a new and potentially ominous pattern."

• NRO's Mark R. Levin: "Obama has managed to reestablish the McGovern coalition, exactly what the superdelegates were created to prevent. But the superdelegates will give Obama the nomination, mostly out of intimidation."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff recognizes Obama's weaknesses but still considers him the favorite to win the Presidency: "I consider Obama the favorite. One can usually predict the outcome of the general election, and come pretty close on the margin, by considering just a few variables: how the economy is doing, whether we're at war and how popular the war is, which party holds the White House and how long it has held it, and how popular the president is. This year, these 'fundamentals' point to a Democratic victory of at least 10 percentage points. Weighing against this outcome is, first, the fact that McCain is a better than average nominee in terms of electability. For one thing, he does not have a close association with the unpopular president. In addition, his appeal to independent and centrist voters is well known. Second, Obama may well prove a worse than average nominee. He lacks anything like the experience voters look for in a president, and he's an extremist as presidential nominees go, a perception that now is reinforced by some of his unusual associations. At this stage, though, it seems more likely than not that these factors won't overcome the fundamentals."

MCCAIN: Saying All The Right Things

Conservative bloggers are praising McCain's speech on his judicial philosophy:

• Mirengoff: "Should McCain's speech satisfy conservatives? Not in and of itself; actions speak louder than words. However, McCain's actions over the years have mostly been consistent with these words. For example, he was a solid supporter of [John] Roberts, [Samuel] Alito, and nearly all of the court of appeals nominees that Democrats attempted to block. His decision to join the Gang of 14 seems to have been a tactical one -- he thought it would maximize success in confirming worthy nominees. One can disagree with that judgment, as I do, without seeing it as inconsistent with a sound judicial philosophy."

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The question, as Michelle [Malkin] notes, is which candidate can we trust to nominate better judges. Given the votes on Samuel Alito and especially on John Roberts, we can see a marked difference between the three candidates still left in the race. If we expect to end judicial activism, then we have to have a President willing to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. We can't even get Obama and Clinton to follow the majority of their Democratic colleagues to confirm such choices, let alone appoint them. I know who I don't trust appointing jurists to the federal bench."

• RedState's Adam C: "Overall, the combination of Sen. McCain's record on judges, his comments on the issue, and his campaign promises should make the judiciary an issue where McCain receives significant support from the conservative movement while he helps win over non-ideological voters to the common sense notion that judges should follow the law, not their own political opinion."

MCCAIN II: Uniting The Dems?

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers think that McCain's promise to nominate judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito will help unite Dems in the fall:

• Firedoglake's Eli warns "all those Clinton supporters who refuse to vote for Obama, and all those Obama supporters who refuse to vote for Clinton": "The Supreme Court currently has four hardcore conservatives and one softcore one. Justice [John Paul] Stevens would be 92 at the end of President McCain's first term, and Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg would be 79. So if you want Republican ideologues like Roberts and Alito to have a stranglehold on the highest court in the land for the next 20 or 30 years, if you want to see Roe v. Wade and God knows what else overturned, (not to mention a neverending bloody clusterfuck in Iraq), then by all means, please stay home or vote for Straight-Talk McCain. I'm sure you totally won't ever regret that at all."

• Open Left's Daniel De Groot: "If anything will bring angry supporters of the losing candidate (and likely the losing candidate in person) to come together in supporting the Democratic nominee, it's the thought of another Alito on the bench. I think this will apply particularly to the divisions in the netroots, as we too well remember the humiliation of the Alito cloture vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Painful Irony

AFP's Olivier Knox:

"US First Lady Laura Bush accused Myanmar's military rulers Monday of failing to warn their citizens in time about a killer cyclone and pressed the junta to accept US aid in the disaster's wake. 'Although they were aware of the threat, Burma's state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm's path,' Bush said in an unusual appearance at the White House briefing room podium."

Daily Kos' DarkSyde:

"I'll skip the obvious pot & kettle dig here over the Bush Administration's staggering, deadly incompetence before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina, put partisanship aside, and only wonder in embarrassment on behalf of the nation I love: what lowlife, imbecilic White House PR slug intentionally sent the First Lady out into the international public spotlight dressed only in this painful irony?"

LEST WE FORGET: Economic Stimulus Check Burned For Warmth

From The Onion:

"HELENA, MT -- Saying the extra bit of kindling material couldn't have come at a better time, 43-year-old school teacher Tim Donaldson received his $618 rebate check from the Internal Revenue Service Tuesday, and then immediately burned it to provide warmth for his wife and two sons. 'It gets pretty cold here at night,' said Donaldson, adding that with 75 percent of his take-home pay going toward car and mortgage payments, his children's schooling, and his wife's medical bills, the rare opportunity to sleep in a warm house for a night was much appreciated. 'I just want to thank the government for sending such a large check. It burned for quite a while.' Donaldson, who could not afford matches or fuel to light the check, said he made do by placing the envelope's clear plastic address window at an angle underneath the sun to spark the initial flame, which his family then huddled around until they fell asleep."

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