January 28, 2008
1/28: Expanding The Pool
Like the rest of the political world, liberal bloggers were surprised by the Barack Obama's 28-point margin of victory over Hillary Clinton in the SC primary. However, what impressed them most was Obama's success in turning out thousands of new voters. After being shut out of the White House for eight years, liberal bloggers just want to win, which is why so many of them find HRC's hardball campaign tactics appealing rather than off-putting. However, this same desire to win makes liberal bloggers intrigued by Obama's ability to bring new people into the process. Ezra Klein sums up the feelings of many liberal bloggers when he writes:
"[This win] restores the central argument for Obama's candidacy: His ability to pull in new voters, to overwhelm the apathy that generally cools turnout, to forge new coalitions. Obama's rationale -- that I will form a new majority -- really benefits from concrete examples of him forming a new majority. A 30-point win in South Carolina is one of those examples."
We've also noticed a trend in the blogosphere: as we near Super Tuesday, bloggers on the left and right are taking a growing interest in the other party's nominating contest. Many conservative bloggers seem to feel that Obama would be a more formidable opponent than HRC, and at least one conservative blogger is openly rooting for HRC to win the Dem nod. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, appear to be most nervous about facing John McCain in the general election.
OBAMA: Yes, We Can!
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The fact that big turnout seems to have powered Obama to his big win strikes me as perhaps more significant than his margin of victory as such. Obama's message of 'bringing people together' to create 'change' is often castigated by his critics as a 'kumbaya schtick' but it looks like something very different whenever he can deliver on promises to mobilize new people and bring them into the process. At the end of the day, politicians respond to facts on the ground. A presidential candidate who can change the facts on the ground by bringing new people into the process can carry a lot of supporters on his coattails. A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done."
Atrios: "As in Iowa, Obama pulled off the feat of actually getting a lot of people to the polls. It's a bit weird to judge a candidate by the success of his campaign. I mean, obviously, in some sense that's how all candidates are judged, but part of Obama's spiel is that he's so awesome that he'll get lots and lots of people to come out to vote for him. The press is overplaying the race and gender stuff, with a little help from the campaigns themselves of course, though that isn't to say there's nothing there. But I agree with Digby that it's the younger people that provide the more interesting story."
Digby: "One of the big successes of the Obama campaign...is the successful courting of the ever elusive youth vote, which has been touted as the promised land so often that older cynics like me are prone to dismiss it out of hand. But it seems to be real this time and it has to do with the inspirational style and generational identification with the candidate but also the technology the campaign is using to reach their potential voters."
Meanwhile, Tom Hayden pens "an endorsement of the movement Barack Obama leads": "I have been devastated by too many tragedies and betrayals over the past 40 years to ever again deposit so much hope in any single individual, no matter how charismatic or brilliant. But today I see across the generational divide the spirit, excitement, energy and creativity of a new generation bidding to displace the old ways. Obama's moment is their moment, and I pray that they succeed without the sufferings and betrayals my generation went through. There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power...We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past. So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead."
However, Open Left's Matt Stoller still has major doubts about Obama: "What worries me is that [Obama's] message of post-partisan unity will be smashed immediately when the Republicans decide they disagree with him, and the press gets bored and turns. For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO's the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama. There's something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I'm seeing all over the place. The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill [Clinton] go down. And be aware that the Village doesn't like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it's called. And oh yeah, Iraq. So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama's coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation. I find Obama's organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I'll have more on that soon. But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary. These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton's."
OBAMA II: The Kennedy Seal Of Approval
Liberal bloggers are also discussing the significance of Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama:
Matthew Yglesias: "One assumes that the iconic figure of American liberalism can help Obama convince people that he doesn't have shrines to David Broder and Ronald Reagan in his basement."
MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "One would have to imagine that receiving robust support from the Kennedy clan, and Ted Kennedy in particular, could help open up some important liberal establishment support for Obama at a time when a late infusion of cash and progressive support could still make a major difference ahead of February 5. Kennedy's support could also help sway some superdelegates to the Obama camp. This doesn't upend everything. But it certainly is a big pick up for Obama."
Ezra Klein: "One interesting sidenote of Kennedy's endorsement -- which we saw with [John] Kerry's endorsement, and [Claire] McCaskill's endorsement...and so on -- is that for all you hear of the power and memory of the Clinton machine, most of these politicians don't seem afraid of it at all. Obama isn't even the frontrunner, and they're endorsing at the most critical, contentious, controversial time, the sort of moment when Clinton would beg them to keep quiet, offer them anything in exchange for support or even neutrality. The Clinton machine like so many machines, is more myth than fact. Bill Clinton can get a lot of media coverage, and the operatives around them know how to run a campaign, but there's nothing particularly fearsome or unassailable about their orgaization."
MyDD's Todd Beeton wonders if Kennedy's endorsement will make Obama more competitive in MA: "So far, Obama enjoys the support of the state's Governor Deval Patrick, Congressman William Delahunt and, as of tomorrow officially, both senators (not to mention, with Caroline's support, the appearance of the endorsement of the Kennedy family although [Robert F. Kennedy], Jr. has endorsed Hillary.) This is a huge base of institutional support for Obama in a state where, on paper anyway, he really shouldn't be competitive...Clearly, this is one of the states Hillary Clinton was counting on not having to compete in. Something tells me it may not be as easy as she'd thought, although a friend of mine familiar with Massachusetts insists the state's demographics still favor Clinton."
OBAMA III: Ya'll Don't Wanna See Me
As we first observed on 1/23, conservative bloggers seem to believe that Obama would be harder to beat than HRC:
NRO's Peter Wehner: "[Obama] is one of the most remarkable political talents in our lifetime...If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential...He is impossible to dislike. And when you see Obama and Clinton together, or back to back, is there any doubt who is the more impressive person -- or the more formidable political figure?"
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Listening to [Obama's] inspirational, rallying speech tonight it's clear and obvious that if he's the nominee, he will be tough to beat."
Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "If you actually look at the results, the Clinton race spin is humbug. Obama has done well in white states; winning Iowa, coming close in New Hampshire; and winning the white rural areas of Nevada. Plus he obviously does well with African Americans; a group the Clinton campaign was spinning as 'divided' by Obama just months ago. The candidate with the more limited demographic appeal is clearly Hillary Clinton, who so far has proven herself a rock star only to the Virginia Slims-'n'-menopause set and their sensible-shoe-wearing sisters in the upper middle classes. The big question isn't Obama's race. What smart Democrats looking for a winner should be asking themselves is how a candidate with as limited appeal as Hillary Clinton could ever beat McCain or [Mitt] Romney in a general election."
NRO's Mark Steyn: "[Obama would] be tough for any Republican candidate, but, if Michael Graham's right, the Clinton machine will take care of the problem."
RedState's Erick Erickson announces that he is rooting for HRC to win the Dem primary: "Does this post say I'm voting for Mrs. Bill Clinton? No. But I'm a free market guy. I'd like to hedge my bets. We're more viable against her and she potentially destroys the Democratic Party from within. So get on board now! Start talking up Obama like the right really likes him. Make the lefties turn and run en masse toward Hillary."
CLINTON: Till The Landslide Brought Me Down...
Several liberal bloggers attribute Obama's enormous margin of victory to voters' distaste for the Clintons' aggressive campaign tactics:
Matthew Yglesias: "Team Clinton has consistently, and rightly, maintained that they're within their rights to be tough on Obama. And so they are -- politics is a contact sport. But that doesn't mean that maximum viciousness is actually a good idea. You want to be seen as likable, fair, judicious, etc. and over the past few weeks the Clinton campaign has been making its candidate look like something other than the mature, experienced, sober-minded choice."
Todd Beeton: "Obama's speech [makes] clear how the Clintons' tactics this week really may have backfired on them: they played into the need for what Barack Obama offers, this sort of 'new kind of politics' that until this week, was an amorphous concept...Hillary Clinton managed to seal the image of herself as the poster child for business-as-usual politics and played perfectly into Obama's hand."
The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "[There's] no question that as much as Slick Willie boosted Hill's campaign in New Hampshire and Nevada, he went a mound of dung too far in South Carolina. His shameful rampage against Obama...started ticking off not only the political and media elites, but it also set off a ground-level backlash that directly contributed to Saturday's lopsided results. The more Bill barked, the greater the number of voters who started reaching for the pepper spray."
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) "all but credited the wide-margin of victory to a backlash against the injection of race in the primary by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign." Stein writes:
"'I'm not surprised at that at all,' Clyburn said, when asked about Obama's big win. 'Because I really believe that in the last 48 hours the voters recoiled. They decided to reject the racial animus they seemed to be developing and I'm so pleased.'
Clyburn, who did not endorse a candidate, did not name names. But the implication was fairly obvious. Earlier in the week, Clyburn expressed a sense of disappointment with the Clinton campaign's tactics and urged Bill Clinton to 'chill' with the race-based politicking. And in an interview with the Huffington Post, the congressman suggested that the former president's aggressive campaigning could be damaging his long-term reputation."
Meanwhile, The Nation's Ari Melber thinks the Clintons are deliberately employing a racial strategy: "An AP article after the victory reiterated the claim by Clinton strategists that Obama has been branded 'the black candidate' -- a supposedly negative development that 'could hurt him' as the campaign continues. This 'black candidate' strategy was advanced by a 'top adviser' to Clinton in another article this weekend, concluding that recent attacks have 'marginalize[d] Obama as "The Black Candidate."' And one more top adviser to Hillary, former President Bill Clinton, flatly claimed that Obama is 'getting votes' because of his race, leaving Hillary with no chance to win South Carolina. The strategy turns on the unstated premise that Hillary will get votes for her race, too, and a lot more of them are available on Super Tuesday. Pundits and writers were quick to conclude that the Clintons' strategy backfired on Saturday night. But it has not even been tested yet. The state with the largest black primary electorate was not the target -- it was the weapon...It's the kind of divisive, cynical politics that could make one oppose Hillary Clinton -- even if you're not backing the 'black candidate.'"
CLINTON II: Has Bubba Jumped The Shark?
Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Bill Clinton for comparing Obama's SC victory to Jesse Jackson's victories in 1984 and 1988:
Matthew Yglesias: "After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too."
Josh Marshall: "Bill damaged himself badly with this comment and to some degree also his wife's candidacy. And there's simply nothing to be gained by [Obama] getting into it with him. Bill's doing plenty on his own to hurt himself."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I've thought most of the criticisms of the Clintons' campaign, including the role played by Bill, have been overblown...But the last few days have changed my view on those matters substantially. The Clintons' strategy has become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday's remarks by Bill Clinton -- in which he pointedly compared Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's and thus implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina as a state where the 'black candidate' wins, followed up by the Clinton campaign's anonymous branding of Obama as 'the black candidate' -- reeked of desperation."
The Huffington Post's R.J. Eskow: "Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson -- while another, unnamed 'Clinton advisor' was saying this victory makes Obama 'the black candidate' -- is as overt a pitch to racial stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years."
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I'm actually a bit surprised that the black community isn't doing more to put a stop to this. Had any campaign baited gays like this, it would be a very public World War III -- and it wouldn't happen twice."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Enough's enough. I don't like dog whistle racial appeals when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Bill Clinton does it. (And unlike Hillary's MLK/LBJ remark, which was idiotically mischaracterized, don't even try to pretend that this was an innocent remark. We're not children here.) Yes, Obama has to be able to handle this kind of sewage, and yes, this will almost certainly be forgiven and forgotten among Democrats by November. But it's not November yet, is it? My primary is a week from Tuesday, and I'm not feeling very disposed to reward this kind of behavior. At this point, it's looking a lot more likely that I'm going to vote for Obama."
Mark Kleiman: "Isn't it amazing how [Bill Clinton] has blown a career's worth of goodwill in three short weeks? It's not as if I can't sympathize; if my sister were running for office her campaign folks would have to put me in a straitjacket. But he has really and truly screwed the pooch. Of course it's not clear how this will play out with the mass of (non-black) Democratic voters. But I think the high-attention voters are likely to be peeling away rather quickly about now."
In a separate post, Marshall elaborates on his concerns about Bill Clinton's behavior: "I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished [Hillary]. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years...He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around?...The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job."
CLINTON III: Moving The Goalposts?
Several liberal bloggers are unhappy with the HRC campaign's efforts to reinstate MI's and FL's delegates:
Josh Marshall: "The Clinton camp really needs to be shut down on this new gambit of theirs to muscle the party and the other candidates into seating the Michigan and Florida delegate slates. And let me be very clear about what I mean. It was very debatable decision whether the DNC should have punished Florida and Michigan with the loss of their delegates slates because they broke the rules the party had set down for scheduling their primaries...But that was the decision -- one that each of the candidates at least implicitly agreed to...You don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama."
Ezra Klein: "As Josh says, there was a period for debate on all this. And the Clinton campaign could have stood and debated it. If they had, if they had said we don't believe this a wise move and we will not abide by it, then the other campaigns would have also competed in those states, and the DNC would, in all likelihood, have backed down. But the Clinton campaign didn't object to the DNC's decision. They said they would abide by it and refrain from campaigning."
TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Wow. This just, well, shows a complete disregard for the agreed-upon rules of the primary process."
Klein also thinks the Clinton campaign's decision could have negative consequences: "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart...If this pushes [HRC] over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn't contest those states because they weren't going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC's procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It's as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama's victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate."
GOP FIELD: A Two-Man Race?
Power Line's John Hinderaker thinks the GOP race is now between McCain and Romney: "Every indication is that Rudy Giuliani is sinking like a stone in Florida. Barring a miracle, he'll finish either a bit above or a bit below Mike Huckabee...If Florida is between McCain and Romney, then the nomination race is between McCain and Romney...Barring a surprise in Florida, Republican primary voters and caucus-goers on mega-Tuesday will face a stark but classic political choice: do they go with Romney, whose views across a broad range of issues are more palatable to conservatives and whose economic expertise may be badly needed, or with McCain, who seems pretty clearly more likely to prevent the Clintons from re-inhabiting the White House? It's not an easy choice."
Richelieu: "McCain may have a conservative problem, but Romney has an independent problem. The question is whether Romney's ability to shift and attract independents in a general election is greater to or equal than McCain's ability to hold a majority of conservative voters in a general. That's a tough question to answer. We do know that Romney is able to change messages with ease in order to cater to different constituencies, however."
Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks McCain could survive a loss in FL: "Despite pledges he would continue on, it is hard to see how Rudy, whose numbers are already dropping in February 5 states, would remain viable after a Florida loss. For Romney, a loss here would leave Michigan as his only win in a contested state and deprive him of a needed boost going into February 5, where he must take on both McCain and Huckabee, who remains a threat in Red states . Things would look grim. But, just as he soldiered on after New Hampshire and Iowa, he would have no reason to give up. (Romney said just that today.) McCain, who now is building leads in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, could survive a close loss in Florida. However, the last thing he wants is to do is revive criticisms that he cannot win in a closed primary and set up a coast-to-coast battle with an opponent who has seemingly unlimited funds. So, on balance, Rudy is the only one who must win, Romney needs it very badly and McCain would sure prefer not to lose."
MCCAIN: For Crist's Sake
Most conservative bloggers believe that FL Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain is great news for the AZ senator:
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This is very, very big. Gov. Crist has amazingly high approval ratings. His approval numbers are somewhere near like in the 70s...We've still got a few days to go, but I have to believe the endorsement of Sen. Martinez -- and now the Governor of Florida -- give McCain tremendous momentum going into Tuesday."
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The Florida primary has been truly too close to call until now, but I've got to believe it has just swung in McCain's favor."
NRO's David Freddoso: "The Crist endorsement isn't about conservatives. It's about Giuliani supporters who are watching their guy drown and thinking of jumping ship. McCain is the other guy they are still considering. This is why the endorsement is hugely important."
Michelle Malkin is not impressed by the endorsement: "Say hello to another soft-on-illegal immigration Republican joining the bandwagon for the Democrats' favorite Republican. Crist supported the Teddy Kennedy/McCain/Mel Martinez shamnesty. Crist also supported driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Birds of a feather..."
Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers think McCain would have trouble if he were to run against Obama:
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the '96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country."
NRO's Mark Levin: "As I watched Obama's speech, I tried to imagine an Obama-McCain match-up. And I think McCain would get his clock cleaned, despite early polls and predictions to the contrary. McCain cannot unite conservatives (due largely to years of hostility toward them, regardless of endorsements) and he will not win over enough Democrats and Independents from Obama to make win."
MCCAIN II: Not-So-Straight Talk?
Most (but not all) conservative bloggers are siding with Romney in the back-and-forth instigated by McCain's claim that Romney used to support "a timetable for withdrawal" from Iraq. Notably, The New York Times calls McCain's charge "misleading."
NRO's Rich Lowry: "As I've said before, McCain deserves a large part of the credit for the surge...But that doesn't justify the rank dishonesty of his attack on Romney over the weekend. It's so shamelessly unfair, it's the kind of thing you'd expect of Bill Clinton attacking Barack Obama. Clearly, McCain wants to change the topic from the economy. And since he's suffering from his 'straight-talk' about his relative lack of knowledge of and interest in the economy, he's trying to compensate with the opposite of straight talk -- blatant distortions -- about Romney's record."
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I concur with Rich's take in the Corner that McCain's lashing out at Romney -- charging he supported withdrawal, a bridge too far in characterizing Romney's cautious words from a year ago -- was an attempt to change the topic from the economy."
Paul Mirengoff: "[McCain] relies on a statement which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain's supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney...What we are now getting from McCain is less than straight talk."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops."
Hugh Hewitt: "The Arizona maverick's attempt to distort Romney's Iraq position will backfire...The attempt to smear Romney as a defeatist in the mold of the Democrats is not the sort of tactic that will endear McCain to the Republican base he is attempting to court, even as McCain struggles to overcome the renewed focus on the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco."
NRO's Byron York doesn't think it's quite so clean-cut: "I know the sentiments here in the Corner about the McCain-Romney tussle over Iraqi timetables. But I have to say that, looking at what Romney said last April, I think McCain has a point...Reading [the transcript], I think it's fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and [Nouri al-] Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal."
Matt Lewis agrees with York: "This is really a nuanced issue...both sides probably have some good points to make on the topic. Are the McCain people trying to make this a bigger issue than it probably is? You bet! Are the Romney people over-doing their maudlin act in portraying this as a 'below-the-belt' attack? Of course! But does McCain have, at least, a legitimate point that is worth debating? Yes he does..."
ROMNEY: The Captain Jumps On Board
Ed Morrissey, otherwise known as "Captain Ed," endorses Romney: "Romney is not a perfect candidate. We don't have any perfect candidates. In fact, I could still support Rudy, McCain, or Mike Huckabee without reservation in a general election against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I think, though, that Romney has the most staying power, the better argument, and the best resume of the remaining Republican candidates. I will enthusiastically caucus for Mitt Romney on February 5th."
To no one's surprise, Hugh Hewitt approves: "I suspect Ed's analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Message To Right-Wing Obamaphiles
The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks conservatives need to think twice about supporting Obama:
"'You'd vote for Barack Obama, wouldn't you?' [Marc] Ambinder demands of me in the latest edition of The Table. The answer is no, but as I've said before, I have the same sentiments about him -- respect, admiration, interest in what he has to say -- that many conservatives seem to feel, which makes me instinctively prefer the notion of an Obama Presidency to the idea of having Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. But as I've also said before, these sentiments coexist with an awareness that an Obama Presidency might be much, much worse from a conservative point of view than a Clinton Restoration -- not only in the very long term, with Obama playing a liberal Reagan to a larger leftward shift in American politics, but in the world of short-term politics as well.
What do I have in mind? Well, possibilities like this, for instance. I know conservatives weren't great admirers of Bill Clinton's AG choices either, but the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice."
LEST WE FORGET: Hillary Sends Bill on Campaign Trip to Antarctica
The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has sent her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on a 'special campaign trip' to Antarctica that could last 'six or seven months,' Clinton aides confirmed today.
'From here on in, Bill is going to be our man in Antarctica,' said top Clinton strategist Mark Penn. 'We have sent him down there with enough food and firewood to last until the Democratic convention this summer.'
The unexpected change in the former president's itinerary happened just hours after Mrs. Clinton's drubbing in the South Carolina primary, causing some party insiders to wonder if Mr. Clinton's mission to Antarctica represented something of a demotion.
The decision to dispatch Mr. Clinton to the South Pole also raised eyebrows because the continent of Antarctica does not participate in the so-called 'Super Tuesday' primaries on February 5 and sends no delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Mr. Penn attempted to tamp down all such speculation, telling reporters, 'This race isn't about votes or delegates, it's about land mass, frozen tundra and penguins.' [...]"
Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 28, 2008 01:11 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
