April 22nd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Several news organizations are now calling the Pennsylvania primary: and it’s a win for Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton over rival Senator Barack Obama. The question now: how big will the win be and will it be a big enough win to impress Superdelegates?
Sen. Hillary Clinton has won the Pennsylvania primary vote as expected, ABC News has projected.
Clinton has led polls in the state, and her win now fuels questions about why Obama hasn’t been able to sew up the nomination, despite having more money, having won more states and having a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, according to ABC News’ delegate scorecard.
The pressure was on Clinton today to win by a large margin.
“Hillary Clinton needs a clear and convincing victory today in Pennsylvania if she wants to continue on in this nominating process,” Democratic strategist Tad Devine told ABC News this morning.
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The Big Debate is over and as the Pennsylvania primary approaches parts of the blogosphere are denouncing unfair and slanted assertions and questions, negative statements, and a piling on of negativity — and that’s just when they write about ABC’s debate moderators. Polarization in the blogosphere reflects the polity. And here’s our famous linkfest that takes you to blogs of various opinions.
WE THOUGHT WE HAD PROBLEMS IN COMMENTS AT TMV: ABC News debate co-moderator George Stephanopoulos is getting an eye-full of anger in comments on his blog. Read skippy.
THE STEPHANOPOULOS DEBATE OVER THE DEBATE CONTINUES.GS defends himself, saying they were asking tough news questions that needed to be asked. The problem: almost 50 minutes of the first part of the debate was seemingly aimed at Senator Barack Obama — leaving GS and ABC News open to the charge that it was not a balanced debate but lopsidedly slated against Obama.
Ed Kilgore looks at the arguments about talking about electability and writes:
The more you look at it, the “electability” defense for endlessly superficial debates–and media “coverage” of campaigns in general–doesn’t make much sense. If George just came right out and said his network needed “fireworks” to boost ratings, it would sound more plausible.
April 10th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The war in Iraq has begun to take center stage with the big hearings in Congress. The Democrats’ tooth and nail battle continues in Pennsylvania. And the blogosphere continues to boil with political posts galore. Here’s our linkfest taking you to some of them on weblogs of differing opinions. Links do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
BARACK OBAMA FACES A PUBLIC FINANCING QUANDARY – or does he?
WHAT’S THE BIGGEST THREAT TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES? Can it be a hand-held lie detector? Bob McCarty writes:
Imagine the practical benefit to voters if presidential candidates — Democrat and Republican alike — are monitored by hand-held lie detectors each time they speak in public. Americans would no longer have to struggle to determine whether or not a candidate is being truthful.
While experts warn that this device is not 100 percent accurate, I’m willing to risk a few “false positives” — or “false negatives,” depending upon how you look at it — when it comes to scrutinizing the endless stream of pledges and campaign promises made by presidential candidates.
McCarty believes this should be troubling news for Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But we could expand this list and say it could ALSO mean sleepless nights for Senator John McCain as well and also Ralph Nader, President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, anyone involved in White House or governmental agency spin operations, members of both houses of Congress of both parties, fire-breathing talk show hosts of the left and right — and actor William Shatner if he’s asked about whether it’s his real hair.
SHOULD JOHN McCAIN PICK SECRETARY OF STATE RICE AS HIS VEEP? The Glittering Eye thinks it would a huge mistake and here’s why.
AND WHAT SOURCING WAS BEHIND THE RICE AS POSSIBLE VEEP STORY, ANYWAY? Pundit Guy has an interesting theory.
The conventional wisdom still has Senator Barack Obama ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton. Why do so many people hate Clinton? And is there a little-advertised way Democratic candidates can make it more likely that they win elections? Here’s our latest linkfest taking you to blogs of varying viewpoints, with a few comments of our own. Links do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
Speaking Of Comedy Shows, Clinton Appeared On Leno and Dean Esmay has the video and wonders why some people virtually hate Hillary Clinton.
Bill Maher Has Some Advicefor Democrats who want to Hillary Clinton to drop her bid.
It’s Obama Versus Clinton in North Dakota and Hillary Clinton is now arguing that pledged delegates can change their votes. The problem: for many many years Democrats, Republicans, liberals, centrists and conservatives all assumed that when they voted for delegates in a primary the delegates voted for the candidates they were pledged to vote for — not for a candidate they voted against. If balloting went way beyond the first ballot, you could see some shifts. If pledged delegates simply shifted allegiances because an opposing candidate made a verbal pitch to them, they would be in hot water politically and any candidate that got the nomination that way would face election obstacles. If he or she was elected, the candidate would take office as a highly polarizing figure who would have no reservoir of good will to fall back on when inevitable crises occurred. The biggest beneficiary of pledged delegates switching would be John McCain.
But Obama Has Problems Too: From the standpoint of Hillary Clinton supporters, the refusal to seat Michigan and Florida could cost Obama in November if he gets the nomination. See Taylor Marsh for that perspective.
March 30th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Is Hillary on the ropes? Is Obama facing a lull before another storm? Is he too wounded to win the election? Is that guy smiling John McCain (yes)? Here’s another edition of our linkfest offering you an Internet roadmap to various sites. NOTE: Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of TMV or its co-writers.
BARACK OBAMA HAS A NEW POLITICAL AD and Dean Esmay has the video and givesyou his take on it.
WARNING: FOX NEWS POLITICAL COMMENTATOR DICK MORRIS COULD BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR CAMPAIGN 2008 PERCEPTIONS according to John Amato. A MUST READ. Morris can indeed be fun to follow, but his predictions are often way off-base and he clearly has an ax to grind against his former employers, the Clintons. At times he seems like the quintessential “disgruntled employee.” (Does that mean at one time he was a “gruntled” employee?). Political scientist Larry Sabato, who is quite accurate in his predictions, once noted that Morris is….accuracy challenged.
SO WHY IS JOHN EDWARDS STILL ON THE FENCE IN THE OBAMA CLINTON FACE OFF? Apparently because Obama blew it.
AN ARTICLE SAYS CLINTON ADVISERS WILL URGE HILLARY TO QUIT THE RACE IF SHE LOSES INDIANA and Allahpundit in a post that needs to be read in full has a theory about what’s really happening:
The most recent Indiana poll I can find puts him up 15 points, although it was taken a month before the Wright thing exploded. Combined with his 20-point lead in North Carolina, I’m starting to suspect people in the party are lying back simply to give her one last courtesy hurrah in Pennsylvania in the expectation that she’ll then flame out in Indiana and North Carolina and they can bring down the hammer full force.
Perhaps but Clinton has insisted now that she will fight all the way through the convention. If the clamor is coming from within her campaign and from outside of it, her political legacy — and future prospects as a Democratic Presidential candidate — will be slim. She could even face a primary challenge in New York if she runs for re-election. But THIS LADY has not sung yet.
VOTE FOR YOUR FAVORITE FEMALE BLOGGER and by the way TMV’s own Jill Zimon is on the list.Vote here.
IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY JAMES CARVILLE COULD CALL GOV. BILL RICHARDSON A JUDAS then be sure to read John Cole who steps back and tries to tell you here what makes Carville tick and what ticked him off.
REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN IS PARTLY-RUNNING ON HIS IMPRESSIVE WAR EXPERIENCE but has that always helped in Presidential campaigns? Apparently not.
AND MCCAIN COULD BE IN FOR A LONG, DIFFICULT RIDE IF THE IRAQ WAR WORSENS as noted by The Gun Toting Liberal.
HILLARY CLINTON IS BEING CALLED A LIAR FOR THE BOSNIA DEBACLE but some believe Obama is a liar too.
WILL BUSH AND CHENEY ONE DAY BE PROSECUTED FOR WAR CRIMES? Andrew Sullivan thinks so and gives specifics why HERE. Prediction: They won’t be prosecuted but history will judge them very harshly all over the world. Historians will pass on using the spin control name for these techniques and will use the traditionally-accepted word beginning with “t” which does define these techniques…since many of these methods have been used for years and called exactly that. Historians ignore government spin masters and partisan bloggers.
March 24th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The campaign is boiling and here’s our famous linkfest to give you a taste of the soup. NOTE: Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of TMV or its co-writers.
IS THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN STARTING TO FRACTURE?There are reports now about dissension in its ranks.
PROGRESSIVES COMPLAIN ABOUT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IN THE CASE OF OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR WRIGHT but are progressives now using the same tactics? Read skippy. Actually, bitterness between the Obama Clinton camps and their respective bloggers has now gotten so great that it seems as if anything goes. Note the angry tone of most blogs.
IS NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON A “JUDAS” FOR ENDORSING HILLARY? Check out Instapundit’s answer.
CAN OBAMA BRIDGE THE DIVIDE AS HE HAS SUGGESTED? Dean Esmay has his doubts.
SOME NOW COMPARE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TO DEPRESSION-PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER but a member of Congress says its the Democrats who are to blame. (Surprise?)
WE RAN A GUEST VOICE POST ON AN INDEPENDENT VOTER DISGUSTED WITH JOHN MCCAIN and now Middle Earth Journal’s Ron Beasley says “me too.”
MORE ON THE (IN)FAMOUS IT’S RAINING MCCAIN” VIDEO: We ran (like many other websites) the…memorable..music video that ostensibly promoted McCain. But was it a Democratic dirty trick? (Or was it?)
A CONNECTICUT NEWSPAPER HAS UN-ENDORSED JOE LIEBERMAN and Too Hot For TNR gives you his take on it. Lieberman is under a lot of fire — a lot of it quite peppery — for his high-profile role in appearing with (and often correcting) John McCain. Some analysts have suggested Lieberman could wind up McCain’s running mate (unlikely). Others have suggested he could have a spot in a McCain cabinet (likely). Or perhaps he just likes being around McCain to schmooze. Will Lieberman speak at the GOP convention a la Zell Miller? Most likely…unlikely. But then again…
DEMOCRATS AREN’T OFTEN GIVEN A PASS ON FOX NEWS but Brit Hume gave McCain a pass on something that would have generated a half-hour if it had involved someone from a certain other party. On the other hand, most likely part of the reason Hume gave him a pass was due to respect over McCain’s life narrative. Which doesn’t excuse it from a journalistic standpoint (it’s hard to IMAGINE Tim Russert shrugging it off the same way). But it perhaps explains it.
IS OBAMA’S STRATEGY A 48 STATE STRATEGY? Tom Watson thinks so and warns it could be fatal to his presidential plans.
March 15th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The campaign and talk radio are now boiling with the controversy over Barack Obama’s pastor. Here’s our linkfest taking you Around The Sphere. NOTE: Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of TMV or its co-writers.
Barack Obama’s Controversial Pastor Has Quit The Obama Campaign but now that Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. is out, some wonder if Obama’s lack of an utter repudiation is the “death blow” to his Presidential hopes. See Talking Points Memo. Steve Sailer asks:
So, Obama, who wrote pp. 274-295 about Wright in his 1995 autobiography, had no idea that Wright was an anti-American leftwing crank until early 2007?
Conservative bloggers are covering this more extensively — and angrily. One of the more step-back analyses comes from Powerline:
If it were true that Obama never knew that Wright was making highly objectionable comments until the start of the presidential campaign, and if Obama denounced the comments at that time, then I think he would have a good defense, i.e., he belonged to the church for years without knowing Wright’s anti-American, anti-white, and generally crazy views, and by the time he learned about them Wright was on the way out, so it made little sense to quit the church – denouncing the statements was enough.
Note, however, that Obama doesn’t say he didn’t know Wright was making highly objectionable comments, only that he never personally heard “the statements. . .that are the cause of this controversy.” It’s plausible that Obama might not have heard (or gotten wind of) the several sermons that have been the focus of this controversy. It’s less plausible that, over a 20-year period, Obama was oblivious to the strong anti-white, anti-American views of Wright.
A fatal blow to Obama or not? All I know is that conservative talk radio made Wright audio clips, angry callers, long monologues the motif of the day. Clearly, the GOP will use clips of this in their ads if Obama gets the nomination. But he still will have to have more debates with Hillary Clinton so there’s still time for him to compensate. He just better be ready to duck when the Republican kitchen sink, and bathtub, and shower are thrown at him in November.
Who Else Has Been Preached To By Wright? Oprah Winfrey, as Ed Morrissey notes. He adds this:
February 21st, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The campaign is REALLY heating up now, with the controversy over the New York Times piece about Arizona Senator John McCain, McCain’s big denial, the New York Times and press coverage becoming issues, plus the big debate show-down in Texas between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The blogosphere is abuzz — and here are some links to some notable buzzes. NOTE: Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
The McCain “Scandal” Is A Story With REAL “LEGS”: Tons of reaction in the blogosphere on all sides. Just a smattering 4 U:
When a Democrat is accused of some sort of affair, the mainstream media is extremely concerned about making 100% sure the story is drop dead accurate, down to the last detail, before they’ll even begin to think about printing the story. That’s why Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story to the public, not the MSM. It’s also why stories about affairs involving John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton have been buried or not printed at all in most MSM outlets over the last few years.
However, when a Republican is involved, Weekly Week World News standards become the order of the day and no excuse is too flimsy to run a story about an alleged scandal.
Unfortunately for John McCain, now that he’s the Republican nominee for President, the MSM has revoked his “honorary Democrat” status and is treating him just like any other Republican, which is why the New York Times has published one of the flimsiest, most insubstantial smear pieces since their attacks on George Bush in 2004.
Unfortunately, having set out a very attractive plate on the table, the Times fails to put any meat on it. Nobody is so much as hinting that there is evidence that the two of them were invoved. Even further, McCain’s voting record clearly shows that the woman’s clients got no traction with McCain and he cast no votes out of the ordinary which differed from his stated positions.
This was a horrible decision on the part of the Times and has the odor of a smear attack. And it could well backfire on them. An attack like this will likely rally some of McCain’s more doubting party members to come charging to his rescue. For the record, I don’t hate the New York Times, though I think they have fallen down on the job on many occasions over the years. But this certainly brings into question the competence of their management. This is a story that should have never gotten out of the draft stage unless they can bring up some more credible, named witnesses and/or evidence.
February 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: Our famous link-fest giving you links to Campaign 2008 posts from weblogs of differing viewpoints, and our pithy comments about many of them. Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
The Case For Hillary Clinton And Against Barack Obama is laid out in a MUST READ post by The Democratic Daily’s JoAnne Tybinka Blasko. Pointed? Yes. But it avoids the screaming, adjective-hurling demonization that you now see on many weblogs that have started to endorse candidates and become open soldiers in the political wars. She provides much material for thoughtful — and heated — debate. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to all.
Hillary Clinton Is Busy Today: There are charges that she is running away from the Wisconsin primary to Texas which might not be a bad idea when you look at it.
Weblogs And Commenters Are Becoming Sensitive as election year draws closer. Earlier in the year we got endless emails from Ron Paul supporters if we dared run a post that was critical (we were then called “corrupt” or pitching a candidate, just as we were called “fair” and “really objective” when we had a post that was in the slightest way complimentary). The past two months this has come from Hillary Clinton supporters as we have covered the controversy over Bill Clinton’s role in the campaign and the ex-Prez’s controversial comments. One week we got 6 scolding emails.
In emails and in comments some people STILL insist the the race card was never raised by the Clinton campaign against Senator Barack Obama. So to underscore that we didn’t make it up (and we will continue reporting this and other campaign developments and trends, even though some say they will never return to TMV again if we do) here are two links 4 U:
1. San Diego Union Tribune columnist Ruben Navarrette is the latest to address the issue HERE. He begins:
Defeat has a way of unmasking Hillary Clinton. It’s when she suffers setbacks that the real Hillary comes out.
And it’s not a kinder and gentler version of the original. There are those political observers and pundits who insist that after Clinton lost Iowa, she demonstrated a personal vulnerability that helped her triumph in New Hampshire.
That is — to borrow a phrase — a fairy tale. When Hillary loses, she gets angry and condescending and terribly unappealing.
The same goes for her supporters. Former President Bill Clinton’s “bubba eruptions” came after Hillary Clinton had lost key contests. It was after Hillary’s loss in Iowa that her husband Bill ripped into the media for allegedly going soft on Obama. And it was after Hillary lost South Carolina that Bill tried to cut Obama down to size by comparing him to Jesse Jackson.
Further down:
Then there is the resurgence of the race card. Bill Clinton was criticized for insinuating that black voters in South Carolina would vote for Obama just because he’s black.
Well, in trying to explain why Obama won the Louisiana primary, Hillary did pretty much the same thing by crediting “a very strong and very proud African-American electorate.” They never learn.
And then it got worse. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, recently told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that some white people in his state “are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” Later, in an interview on MSNBC, the Democrat tried to defend his comments by saying that Hillary Clinton had “the same handicap” since there were men who didn’t want to see a woman serve as commander in chief.
And they say all the cavemen are Republicans.
All of this has been discussed ad nauseum in weblogs, on TV and the radio so those in emails and in comments who insist the issue never came up are….a bit “uninformed.”
2. Andrew Walden, Editor of the Hawai`i Free Press in Hilo, HI, writing in Pajamas Media, looks at the use of the race card in the Clinton campaign. Here’s the beginning:
Nearly two weeks after a crime had been committed in South Carolina, the prime suspect, Bill Clinton, was finally “tracked down at a local diner” in Maine February 8. Wagging his familiar finger, Clinton informed a reporter from Maine TV station WCSH that he “learned a very valuable lesson. … I have to let her defend herself.” And just in case the old familiar wagging finger was not enough, Bill added the biggest whopper of all: “I don’t want to be the story.”
But if the polls are to be believed, hiding Bill up in Maine was too little, too late. Democrats are abandoning Bill Clinton — and Hillary — like rats from a sinking ship. The Clinton-Obama near-tie on Super Tuesday was the line of Obama’s ascent crossing that of Hillary Clinton’s demise. Barack Obama has proceeded to defeat Hillary in every state since. Bill Clinton’s power is no longer “crackling through his jeans.” The sudden loss is the Clintons’ Ceausescu moment.
Is racism the unforgivable crime finally ending Democrats’ 16-year love affair with Bill Clinton? No, it’s worse: from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Clinton’s carefully calculated and racially tinged attacks on Obama risked setting black America free from the Democrat Party.
He details how JFK won black voters in 1960, cementing them to the Democratic coalition. Then he writes:
Bill Clinton’s campaign strategy comes right out of Hillary’s infamous and long-hidden 1969 senior thesis on radical organizer Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s 13th Rule for Radicals is: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” For three weeks in January, the Clintons and their backers did their best to polarize non-black Democrat voters against Obama, bringing up Obama’s admitted past drug use and firing off one-liners like “Lyndon Johnson,” “fairy-tale,” “shuck and jive,” and “spade work” to increasing choruses of anger from liberals and conservatives alike. But it backfired.
February 13th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: This is a special Potomac Primaries edition of our famous Around The Sphere link-fest: it gives you reaction to weblogs of many different viewpoints on yesterday’s primaries and the political scene. Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
REACTION TO THE VICTORIES OF DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA AND REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN IN THE VIRGINIA, MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON D.C. PRIMARIES:
The people in nearly 40 states have spoken and most Democrats prefer the junior senator from Illinois and more Republicans prefer McCain over the Huckster.
And 7 months out, Obama looks to be a lock in the general election.
The best the Huckster could do was lose by “only” 9 points in Virginia. McCain had majorities in all 3 states. We can talk about conservatives vs. RINOs all we want but the truth is the party does not belong only to those who pretend to speak for Ronald Reagan. A photo op with Nancy might make it clear that his name on some bad legislation aside, McCain is a conservative and has been since before Goldwater.
Obama’s campaign need not worry about superdelegates. They are like the Electoral College and will obey the will of the people of their states. They will side with him before Hillary departs this race. And Florida and Michigan will get full delegations.
I was feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton just now, when I saw the expression on her face as she waited to go onstage in El Paso. This process is so grueling. And the rejection, when it comes is so personal, in a way “normal” people never experience. Even a performer as professional as she couldn’t conceal the bone-tired, beaten-over look on her face.
But now, fifteen-plus minutes into a dreary recitation of policy-points that will do nothing to satisfy those who want her to say what her campaign is for, I am feeling less sorry. She has not had the grace to mention Barack Obama’s name, nor his existence or success…. This is not classy and does not help.
Huckabee hasn’t won more than 45% in any state, and he didn’t get to 45% in Virginia last night, either. Virginia’s winner-take-all primary was his last hope of affecting McCain’s trajectory in any meaningful way, and he lost by nine — as I had predicted earlier in the day.
McCain has already started shifting his focus to the general election. He offered nothing but kindness to Huckabee, but began challenging Barack Obama. Expect to hear McCain repeatedly dismiss Obama’s platitudes on “hope” and get him into a debate on specific policies. Obama will lose that fight, but if he doesn’t engage McCain, he’ll look like an empty suit. McCain has a lot more time to focus on Obama than the reverse, and he can do some damage to Obama’s momentum among independents while Obama tries to finish off Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s got everything going for him right now, including momentum. There’s only one thing he doesn’t have and that’s more scrutiny. Yet…Superdelegates will now come into play, but there’s also Michigan and Florida. Somebody in charge better get a firm grip, because these forces could collide….Tough going ahead for Clinton, but also for Obama as well, only for different reasons. The gloves will come off, if only subtly and more pointedly. Clinton is left with no other choice. As for Obama, he’s now going to have to tread on territory where he’s weakest. Defining himself. Better to do it now before the Republicans do it for him.
McCain now stands just under 350 delegates short of clinching the nomination, and he’ll get it by March 4th….Not only did Barack Obama sweep the Potomac Primary, he did so decisively and, in Virginia, beat Clinton in almost every demographic category. That would seem to bode well for states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. More importantly, he’s ahead in the delegate count and, as Howard Fineman argued last night on MSNBC, there’s almost no way that Hillary can win based on the pledged delegates alone
Questions For The Future
As we head into the third act of this campaign, this seems to be what people will be talking about
1. How will the DNC handle the fact that Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates?
2. Will the Democratic superdelegates go against the popular vote?
3. Who’s in the running for McCain’s Veep?
4. Will there be a big third-party run?
February 10th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: This is a special campaign 2008 edition of our famous Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints and give you our comments on the issues raised. Links do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
More On Hillary Clinton Versus MSNBC’s David “Pimped Out” Shuster whose whore-able choice of words sparked a political/media firestorm. Tom Watson sees some political and media fallout:
The towel-slapping, anti-woman frat boys (plus Andrea Mitchell) over at MSNBC just had their bells rung by the political equivalent of a punishing Michael Strahan sack. Not only does David Shuster face an indefinite suspension for his boorish “pimped out” remark about Chelsea Clinton. Not only has the network had to apologize multiple times to the candidate its talking heads openly despise and root against (see Olbermann’s best special comment of the year, above). Not only does it put Chris Matthews and his gang of Clinton haters on public double probation. But the pimping out moment does something else as well.
It turns the momentum in the all-important Media Primary.
For the very first time in this year-long marathon, Hillary Clinton has turned back the swelling, snarling, sexist media beast like Gandalf confronting the Balrog.
The Shuster locker room moment was a tipping point in this battle with the media for the Clinton campaign, an opening to jab a killing spear into the gut of the snarling beast, and an absolutely justifiable reason for a counter-attack.
(And he says a lot more). As we noted in THIS POST yesterday, the controversy reflects the cable talk media culture. There are pitfalls to “advocacy journalism,” particularly when it involves journalism that has become intertwined aspects of talk radio.
February 7th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: This is a special campaign 2008 edition of our famous Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints and give you our comments on the issues raised. Links do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
For the past decade or so, I’ve had a little theory about Primary contests in the US.
It seems that the political establishment of both parties has great resilience, more than is often assumed. It can mobilise money, people, contacts, rumours, and primal fear better than even the most exciting challengers.
Of course, this ‘establishment’ concept is relative rather than absolute - most folk who become serious candidates for the presidency have serious money, influence and elite interest behind them somewhere in the background. But some are more establishment than others.
So in 2000, Bush junior crushed ‘maverick’ McCain in 2000 after a promising initial campaign, while Al Gore hammered Bill Bradley. In 2004, a patrician John Kerry overcame Howard Dean.
So what has happened in 2008? Click on the link and see…
But we’ll add this: it ain’t over till its over and it ain’t over. The lady who needs Weight Watchers hasn’t sung yet. But the problem is: Read the rest of this entry »
February 5th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: This is a special SUPER TUESDAY edition of our famous Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints and give you our comments on the issues raised. Links do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.
A MUST READ TODAY of all days. Political scientist Steven Taylor’s Toast-O-Meter. Who’s baking nicely…and who looks like toast?
Is Obamania An Unrealistic Dream To Many? One of TMV’s favorites, Stephen Green aka Vodkapundit, takes a concise but clinical and perceptive look at the realities as to whether Barack Obama could wind up his party’s nominee after today’s’ vote and here is his bottom line:
If Clinton leads by fewer than 100 delegates after all the votes are counted tomorrow, then the Denver convention could very well be brokered. Or Obamania could mean that Obama is ahead by some small number on Wednesday morning. In which case, the nomination is his.
Now those are some tears Hillary would never shed in public.
Here where I WILL be a wishy-washy moderate: I would never make a prediction on this race. But I WOULD say this about California: there seems a lot of excitement about Obama here, particularly among independents. Independent voters love Arnold Schwarzenegger (who endorsed McCain) and his wife Maria…who endorsed Obama. BUT independent voters cannot vote in the Republican primary — and many Republicans here do not feel Arnold Schwarzenegger is “pure” enough for them. So it’s not impossible that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could do well here…as could Obama.
At A Recent Event Arizona Senator John McCain Left The Audience Laughing but this time not with his serious speeches….He was injecting some humor into his political act. And The Garlic has some additional suggestions for him HERE.
Speaking of John McCain Dick Polman, a columnist and political blogger who is REQUIRED READING wonders whether McCain thinks “denial” is a river:
John McCain may well become the GOP’s putative nominee after the smoke clears on Feb. 5, but he’s still anathema to many conservative soldiers. I was reminded of this last night, after suggesting in a Sunday print column that the anti-McCain forces, by refusing to embrace him and threatening to sit out the election, might wind up undercutting the only electable Republican.
The emails were scalding, and I almost had to call the fire department…I’ll spare you the numerous personal attacks on McCain; apparently, it still bugs some conservatives that he ended his first marriage and wedded a rich young woman nearly 30 years ago. Suffice it to say that, if he’s the nominee, his prospects in November are nil if he can’t galvanize the conservative base. If George W. Bush had failed in that task back in November 2004, he would have been a one-term president.
The problem is, McCain keeps acting as if he doesn’t have a problem. Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, he said this: “We’re doing fine with conservatives…In Florida, we got, as you know, a majority of the Republican voters in a Republican-only primary.”
That’s a fresh twist on his favorite falsehood. A couple weeks ago, he was publicly insisting that he had won a majority of Republican voters in the open primaries of New Hampshire and South Carolina, whereas, in truth, he hadn’t even won a plurality of the Republican voters in either contest. Now comes his claim about the Florida primary - and, again, he was not being accurate.
Polman is CORRECT: Yesterday I drove 440 miles from Salinas, CA to San Diego. I listened to at least five conservative talk shows, local and national. ALL OF THEM were virtual extended commercials for Mitt Romney – with the hosts sneering, snarling, cajoling viewers, going on about how “liberal” McCain is, how he will destroy the Republican Party. Romney was on at least two of these shows yesterday and the male and female hosts urged and in some cases almost ordered their listeners to vote for Romney.
McCain’s biggest sins: (1) He is a MODERATE not a conservative and therefore cannot be the party’s nominee (2) He works with Democrats (3) He has opposed torture, (4) He has not gone along with George Bush and Republicans on some other issues.
McCain has a big, fat problem (and that is not a specific reference to Rush Limbaugh). But so does the Republican Party because it has a key segment that clearly seeks an exclusionary party — one that considers moderates and independent voters the enemy and unwelcome. And he who works with them AND Democrats is the enemy. Talk radio yesterday truly did seem like the overused cliché term “hate radio” because it seemed nonstop and was acutely personal — even though many of these hosts insisted it was not (if you believe that, then I can sell you THIS for $200). McCain’s wife Cindy was also dragged into the the debate. Issue, schmissues…as long as it can discredit McCain who cares if we make an issue of his wife?
The only exception to this was Fox’s John Gibson who doggedly defended McCain and grilled listeners on how McCain differed from Romney (or, rather, the latest incarnation of Romney). THE IRONY: months ago these same hosts and these same listeners mercilessly blasted Romney for being insincere, a flip-flopper and a person with a history of being a liberal. But McCain hatred has led to Romney love. The enemy of my enemy is my friend..
Bottom line: McCain has a lot of fence-mending to do…his fences on the right. Poligazette has some more thoughts on the McCain/Conservatives war.
An Example Of A Romney Supporter Who Isn’t On An Anti-McCain Jihad is blogger Doug Williams, who will caucus in Minnesota today and supports Romney. His post which MUST be read in full says among other things:
I frankly don’t buy into the all-too-convenient Road-to-Damascus conversion to the popular conservative side on matters of pro-life, gay marriage, or the rest of his crib-note Ronald Reagan act. Frankly, that’s politics. It is what it is, and he’s not the only one playing that game. However Romney seems to offer a record of someone who does not claim to always have the right answer. But he can lead, he can adapt, and he can attack all sorts of unexpected problems no matter how new they are to him and succeed.
I don’t know if the next presidency is going to have to focus more on Iraq, a recession, or a global energy crisis. With President Romney, I feel like I’m picking a leader adaptable enough to handle most anything. John McCain is excellent at what he’s good at, and rather clumsy at what he’s not. And he’s frequently too stubborn to change course in the latter case.
Now, that being said, I rather expect John McCain to win the nomination in the end. Some of you may recall that I read the tea-leaves just before Iowa and was rather startled to draw that conclusion. But if anything, luck has fallen even more in his direction than I expected when I predicted he would win back then. And, let me add, I think in many ways he would make an excellent president. None arrive without flaws, and more often than not a president displays qualities in office that weren’t even part of the discussion when they campaigned. That could break either way, and in the case of both Romney and McCain I’m optimistic.
No demonization. No attacking McCain’s wife. No accusations that — GASP! — McCain has the support of MODERATES. No charge that he will — hide the kids — work with Democrats. He actually makes a case for Romney. Read the rest of this entry »
February 3rd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: Another special Election 2008 edition of our popular Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints — and give you our comments on some of the political issues raised. This version will only contain election-related links. It will appear several times a week until Election Day.
The Bitter Irony For Hillary Clinton: Taylor Owen at Oxblog (one of TMV’s favorite blogs):
In a sense you have to sympathize with Hillary. She was supposed to be the one who inspired the enthusiasm of Bill’s initial run. She was supposed to be the one who brought in the desired change away from the Bush years. She was supposed to be the one that the left rallied around. She was supposed to be the one that a new generation got excited about. She was supposed to be the one that made history. She was supposed to be the one that became a movement. She was supposed to be the one.
He then offers an incredible new Obama video and adds:
January 29th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: Another in our series of special Election 2008 editions of our popular Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints — and give you our comments on some of the political issues raised. This version will only contain election-related links. It will appear several times a week until Election Day.
The Latino Vote Is Solidly Behind Senator Hillary Clinton – or IS IT? Al Giordoano reports in the Huffington Post that the vote is more up for grabs than people think. One lingering issue: the powder-key issue of whether to grant drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
Senator Ted Kennedy’s Endorsement Of Barack Obama was highly significant, according to Dick Polman, who has a post that needs to be read in full. A tiny taste of it:
Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama is clearly a major blow to the Clintons - and not just because the senior keeper of the Kennedy flame is tight with the kinds of primary voters that Obama needs most (downscale workers, union members, and Hispanics); and not just because Ted will stump for Obama in key Feb. 5 states (probably California, New Jersey, Hispanic-heavy Arizona, and certainly Massachusetts, which has almost as many delegates as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina combined).
Indeed, it’s uncertain whether Ted’s florid face and rhetoric are enough to sway large numbers of voters. Yes, his endorsement of Obama and his rejection of the Clintons are unprecedented (due in part to his distaste for Bill’s anti-Obama campaigning); he has traditionally stayed above the fray during Democratic primary seasons. But is he really capable of sprinkling enough Camelot fairy dust to shift the ground game? I wonder.
But Polman, like yours truly, was struck by Teddy’s comments aimed at the Clintons:
Bill has long sought to fuse the Kennedys and the Clintons, to make them synonymous in Democratic politics, but Ted has now severed the link, and made it easier for Obama to argue that Democrats can have the former without the latter. Moreover, some of Ted’s remarks today can be read as a rebuke of the Clintons: “(Obama) will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.”
The whole event when seen on TV did have the “inspiring” tenor of the 60s. Kennedy made his announcement amid a sea of college students, and it was emotional. It’s especially interesting to see Kennedy at work during a speech. He soars, he connects — but he also will take a glace to the side and grin, as if to say “Hey, this is FUN isn’t it?” Many of today’s politicians seems incarnations of right/left wing talk show hosts — angry all the time.
What the Clinton’s may have to fear the most is that the Obama campaign will likely be more than a typical just get-out-the-vote campaign. It was MOST notable that Carolyn Kennedy indicated she was prodded to endorse Obama because her three kids clamored for her to do so.
What does this suggest? It again suggests if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination she is going to have some fence-mending — and inspiring — to do.
January 19th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: Another in our series of special Election 2008 editions of our popular Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints — and give you our comments on some of the political issues raised. This version will only contain election-related links. It will appear several times a week until Election Day.
The Great Confederate Flag Controversy Surfaces In South Carolina (Again) and lo and behold it’s again being used against Arizona Senator John McCain who’s losing ground to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who — coincidentally — is coming out in favor of it waving there (apparently forever). Booker Rising, a site that bills itself as a “news site for black moderates and black conservatives’ but must be required reading for everyone, writes this:
However, I’ll take on Mr. Huckabee’s statement and say it again: “Your” flag should be the American flag, not the traitorous Confederate flag. “Southern pride” here translates into racist Southern pride, for these symbols represent slavery, degradation, and un-Americanism. Most blacks are Southerners, yet very few are down with the flag. To flag lovers: you lost the Civil War - get over it already! The Civil War killed 617,000 folks, and the South illegally tried to secede from the United States. This flag is no different than the Nazi flag - that of a vanquished totalitarian entity that USA thankfully put out to pasture. Yet supporters want to fly this traitorous flag equal to that of the U.S. flag over a state capitol.
Read it all.
Yes On The Political Scene In South Carolina it is very un-pretty indeed. But some folks who would have never gotten an invitation to my bar mitzvah (or attended if they were invited) do have their favorites and unfavorites.
Why Are Some People More Than Ever This Year Progressive Democrats? The All Spin Zone’s Richard Blair has an extensive MUST-READ POST HERE. Here is just a tiny part of it but read it all:
I’m angry. I’m angry with the business climate that has upended my life and that of millions of others like me. I’m angry that I’m good enough at what I do that I’m the “go-to” guy when there’s a steaming pile of business shit that someone else has left for me to clean up, but there’s no one to back me up when I have a less than stellar day at the office. I’m angry that at this point in my life I’m locked into a fairly dead-end position because of the paycheck, but more importantly, benefits that I can’t (again, at this point of my life) afford to be without.
January 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
NOTE: Another in our series of special Election 2008 editions of our popular Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints — and give you our comments on some of the political issues raised. This version will only contain election-related links. It will appear several times a week until Election Day.
Ron Paul Under The Microscope And Under Fire: Rep. Ron Paul came under fire recently when it was learned his newsletters had racist and other outrageous comments in them. He argued he didn’t see everything in it. But in THIS POST Donklephant notes that it now has come out Paul and his family got money from the newsletters. A small part of the post:
So all that slack I’ve been cutting Ron Paul for the newsletters controversy? Yeah, it’s all gone.
Reason did some digging and uncovered tax documents which prove that Paul, his wife and daughter were compensated for their services as staff members of the company that published the newsletters.
…What can he say at this point? I mean, we’re talking about income earned from out and out bigotry? Of course this shouldn’t take away from Paul’s “current” message, but it completely decimates Paul’s credibility. He simply can’t claim he didn’t know what was being written in newsletters from a company that employed and paid him, his wife and his daughter. No way.
Paulites, please share your thoughts.
Oh…and I’m SURE they will (and, from the number of comments, THEY HAVE). Read it in its entirety.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Is Like My Uncle Irv: He gets blasted a lot..in a different way. But Oxblog’s always thoughtful David Adesnik looks at Romney and increasingly likes what he sees:
Romney’s ability to rapidly change his persona and values reflects his extraordinary success as a business executive. On that point, I’d be very interested in the observations of those of you who have had extensive experience in the private sector.
My sense is that the private sector places such a high premium on achieving results in the next month or next year that it has little interest in whether a chief executive has consistent principles. But great presidents must always take a longer view. Much as I support McCain, I suspect that Romney would be a very competent administrator of the federal government. I also believe he would be fairly moderate and favor a good degree of bipartisanship. I’d certainly vote for him over any of the Democrats.
Perhaps. Yours truly LIKED Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts, in his old incarnation as a moderate Republican. The irony is: in their thirst to stop Arizona Senator John McCain at all costs, some conservative GOPers could well shift Big Mo from McCain to Romney as the Republican nominee. In normal times, they’d oppose Romney. But turn on talk-radio and listen to Republican icon Rush Limbaugh lambaste McCain repeatedly. McCain could win the election but has a steep hill to climb on the nomination. Romney could get the nomination but will have a steep hill to climb on the election.
Speaking of Romney, Did An AP Reporter Go Over The Line With Him or did he go over the line with the reporter?” The blogosphere was abuzz yesterday with outraged posts about Romney’s big confrontation with AP reporter Glen Johnson over whether a close associate who’s a lobbyist is “running” Romney’s campaign. View it yourself:
Some, like the All Spin Zone accused Romney of mincing words (and it later came out that to a certain extent HE WAS doing just that). Others such as Macsmind think Johnson is biased and has shown to be biased before and was WAY out of line.
There are two issues here (1) Was a lobbyist “running” Romney’s campaign? The word “running” does matter, and Romney was probably correct: his lobbyist friend is not “running” his campaign but is still his friend (and what’s unspoken is he probably has some influence with Romney). (2) Was the reporter out-of-line?
It looks like Johnson had some personal animosity and went over the line.. Reporters are trained to ask tough questions and a GOOD reporter WILL do a follow up if the news source tries to wiggle out of answering. And what is election season BUT a bunch of usually-millionaire people running around the country trying to wiggle out of giving an answer that will lose them support?
But generally a reporter doesn’t keep challenging the interview subject and all but call him a liar. Note how NBC’s Tim Russert didn’t get total answers out of the big three Democratic primary candidates on Sunday, but he moved respectfully on after not getting his answer in follow ups. Also remember how CBS’s Dan Rather’s career seemingly sagged after his confrontation with then-President Nixon on TV. Except on highly-visual news shows such as 60 Minutes, most reporters don’t brow-beat their interview sources.
Proof that Johnson went too far: he has now become the story. AND the campaign officials admonition about not arguing with “the candidate” makes you wonder if we’re now heading into the age of The Imperial Candidate. (If you hate what I wrote, don’t bother The Blogger.).
Again Speaking Of Romney, he has been accused of having more flip-flops than the Swap Meet here in San Diego on a Sunday morning. But Poligazette thinks another candidate outsides him…
And Speaking Of That Other Candidate, he has now apparently equated homosexuality with bestiality and ATypical Joe has a lot of thoughts to share with you on THAT. (If you didn’t click on the earlier link we won’t tell you who he is except that he does look like actor Kevin Spacey.)
Also a must read on this: Professor Bainbridge who says if this candidate gets the GOP nomination “I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain). ” Read the ENTIRE post and find out why.
A SPECIAL NOTE ON A VOICE — AND PERSON — LOST WHO WON’T BE WITH US IN CAMPAIGN 2008:
Campaign 2008 promises to be pivotal year and a high-drama campaign. But one voice in the blgosophere is now stilled — a weblog writer who wrote on all kinds of topics, but particularly the war…a war he actually fought in. And now he’s gone.
His name was Andrew Olmsted and we linked to this highly-versatile blogger here at TMV from time to time. We exchanged emails some time ago.
He was killed in an ambush in Iraq.
I can’t say more except for full details READ THIS IN FULL (be sure to click on all of the links in the post)…then say a prayer…and if you don’t believe in God, light a candle.
And give thanks for him having shared his ideas with us and for having given his life for us.
Andy: you’ll always be on our memories’ blogroll…
[NOTE TO READERS: Typo is fixed. If you see a typo in the future, kindly email us and we will fix it immediately — rather than informing us in comments.]
December 26th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Our original link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints — soon to enter its fourth year. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
THIS CHRISTMAS SEASON, THE WORLD SAW ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS. Or did it?
DON’T SAY THE PHRASE “WELL, I’LL BE A MONKEY’S UNCLE” at a Republican debate.
IS THE DOOR OPEN NOW FOR A RON PAUL RUN? Some think Paul has now left it ajar. The only problem is that third parties — the way the American system is set up — don’t really have a chance. A third party is a legitimate way of articulating a view but does not (yet) seem a viable way of actually winning the White House (unless there were some incredible split at the polls). So if Paul (who has highly-loyal supporters) does run, the hard-nosed question will become: so which of the two major party candidates will he hurt the most?
RON PAUL WAS ON MEET THE PRESS and, due to his appearance on it, lost the support of Peoria Pundit. Details HERE. But Ron Paul supporter Red State Electric in an extensive (must-read) post is surprised at some of the reaction.
BATTLE-TESTING HILLARY CLINTON: Tom Watson, in yet another TW post that needs to be read in its entirety writes about Clinton’s bad week and seeming “fall” media and polling grace.
This fall has been about a concerted effort of a large section of the national media to derail the Hillary Clinton express. You can see it in th
