Obama '08?

WHOA!

That's a surprise, I have to say.

Not an entirely happy one, for more than one reason. (A) I like him, B) I think he was helping Obama.)

WOW!

Thanks for breaking the news, Thomas, first I've heard of it.

Thanks for breaking the news, Thomas, first I've heard of it.

I asked this question a while back about who Edwards was helping....I'm inclined to believe that he was taking votes from Obama, thereby helping Clinton. This throws Super Tuesday into a flux.

I asked this question a while back about who Edwards was helping....I'm inclined to believe that he was taking votes from Obama, thereby helping Clinton. This throws Super Tuesday into a flux.

I can't believe that you really thought he'd stay in it. Why? Just imagine being in his shoes and making such a poor showing at every single primary? Imagine sitting on a stage and being literally ignored while the other two candidates get all of the questions and eat up all of the time with their responses. Imagine having to remind commentators that you're even there.

He's only human, after all. I'm sure his feelings have been terribly hurt and his ego has taken quite the beating. Personally, I think it's high time for him to go home and be with his ailing wife.

Bob Kerrey's Tame Response To Bob Herbert
January 29, 2008 -- 4:08 PM EST // link //
The other day this blog took a whack at Bob Herbert's weekend column in The Times, which among other things used a single anonymous racist blog posting about Barack Obama to insinuate that the Clintons are "gleeful" about the rampant racism that's been uncorked by the dust-ups between the two leading Dem candidates.

Herbert's column, which relied on quotes from everyone but the Clintons to make its case, also hit Hillary supporter Bob Kerrey for wrongly saying that Obama attended a "secular madrassa," which Herbert held up as proof that Kerrey was trying to slime the Illinois Senator.


Now Kerrey has responded in a letter to The Times:

Re "Questions for the Clintons," by Bob Herbert (column, Jan. 26): Mr. Herbert took a piece of a complimentary statement I made about Senator Barack Obama's being qualified to be president, imputed that my motive was to "slime" the senator, sandwiched a few of my words between a statement by Andrew Young and a vile anonymous Internet posting, and rested his case.

Though I am generally not surprised by this technique, as a regular reader of Mr. Herbert, I was surprised by his use of the device. I attribute this to the passions this campaign has aroused.

Kerrey is "surprised" by Herbert's tactic and attributes it "to the passions this campaign has aroused"? I'm sorry, but this is pretty weak stuff.

Herbert's use of an anonymous blog posting to score points was straying deep into Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs territory; a tactic as rank as this is deeply unbecoming to the paper. And while Herbert did say that Kerrey subsequently apologized, he didn't tell readers that Kerrey also claimed that his reference to the madrassa was unintentional, a key detail given the insinuations, or that the Obama campaign accepted Kerrey's letter of explanation.


In short, the column resorted to some pretty questionable tricks indeed. Whichever candidate you support, such stuff really fouls up our discourse, whoever its target, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so a little more forcefully.

Imagine sitting on a stage and being literally ignored while the other two candidates get all of the questions and eat up all of the time with their responses. Imagine having to remind commentators that you're even there.

I can't believe that you really thought he'd stay in it. Why? Just imagine being in his shoes and making such a poor showing at every single primary? Imagine sitting on a stage and being literally ignored while the other two candidates get all of the questions and eat up all of the time with their responses. Imagine having to remind commentators that you're even there.

He's only human, after all. I'm sure his feelings have been terribly hurt and his ego has taken quite the beating. Personally, I think it's high time for him to go home and be with his ailing wife.

Obama's Conservofans
30 Jan 2008 08:21 am

Reading what Ross says here, I realize that what I wrote about Barack Obama's admirers among the conservative pundit class is open to misinterpretation. Here's something that people I talk to sometimes say, but that I don't believe:

Conservative pundits like David Brooks like to praise Barack Obama because they think he'll be an easy mark in the general election.
What I do think is that praising Barack Obama appeals to conservative pundits in large part because, right now, praising Obama is a useful means by which to denigrate Hillary Clinton. As such, I think part of the background for things like Brooks' praise of Obama is belief that he's likely to lose the primary. I think there's a desire on the right to make the 2008 election mostly about the Clinton family rather than being about contemporary American conservatism's horrid record in office. Portraying the current Democratic primary as an apocalyptic struggle between the forces of light and the forces of Clintonism nicely sets up the general election as a second round between light and Clinton. Do I see this as a machiavellian scheme hatched out of Karl Rove's front office? No. But that's my diagnosis of the function of Obamafandom. If Obama loses the primary, Obamafandom becomes a reason to vote Republican -- the Democratic Party is so rotten that it rejected the One. If Obama wins the primary, I assume that Obamafandom will rapidly wither away. It will turn out that the Democratic Party is so rotten that it tainted the One. Or something like that.

Meanwhile, what I'm trying to say about the real world is that there's just no justification for viewing the Obama/Clinton choice as some kind of night and day Moment of Decision for America. There are differences between the two of them, but in the scheme of things they're either small differences or fuzzy ones, not the gaping void that many on the right seem to perceive.

McCain and the Base
30 Jan 2008 08:21 am

Kevin Drum notes that contrary to what you might think, John McCain won in Florida without really solving his base problem at all. He lost self-identified conservatives and he lost self-identified Republicans, too:



Kevin remarks: "Does anyone seriously think that any Republican candidate can kick such major ass among independents in November that he can afford a conservative base that's not charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't." Well, no, neither do I. But fortunately for the GOP, the Democratic front runner is still Hillary Clinton whose nomination would ensure solid base support for McCain despite the lack of genuine enthusiasm. Does anyone seriously think that any Democratic candidate is more likely than Clinton to ensure a conservative base that's charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't.