Karl Rove?

Writes Karl Rove about Obama/HRC.

That means Florida on the 29th looms very large. The outcome of the contest in the Sunshine State is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the 23 contests on Super Tuesday.

In Florida, there are no delegates awarded, so the Democrats won't be campaigning there. Doesn't seem from the article that Rove is aware of this. But maybe he means that the media's coverage of the Democratic "winner" will be dispositive for Feb. 5? But the media isn't likely to cover the Democrats....

Comments

So is this further proof that Rove was the most overrated political "intellect" in American history (my view) or is this an example of some type of triple bank shot screw over he is attempting. You know, he writes that it is important, the Dems thinking he is right and suddenly start campaigning there, the DNC gets POed and start making noise, then the press starts writing (at Rove's urging) "Dems in disarray" stories?

Posted by Mark | January 10, 2008 9:10 AM

Marc,

Do you know exactly what Edwards/Obama/Clinton pledged to not do in Florida when they signed the statement?

Did they pledge not to campaign in the state?

Did they pledge not to run ads?

Anything else?

Posted by Petey | January 10, 2008 9:27 AM

Though there will be no actual delegates awarded, winning a major contest like Florida still gives candidates a springboard.

Posted by Benson | January 10, 2008 9:33 AM

Marc,

You should know better. Candidates need momentum going into February 5th. Coverage drives momentum. News drives coverage. A surprise outcome constitutes news. The expected outcome, based on recent polling, is an HRC victory. Edwards and Obama have much incentive to try to produce a surprise outcome in Florida, especially of the media is already going to be focusing attention on the state because of the GOP contest.

Posted by dry_fish | January 10, 2008 9:37 AM

Wasn't Karl Rove the Bush Republican who had "The Math" and therefore argued with NPR that the eminent 2006 Thumpin' wasn't in his Reality?

I guarantee that Democrats have ignored Karl Rove since the day Dick Cheney ordered him fired.

Do intelligent Republicans still listen to this fool?

Posted by Jan | January 10, 2008 10:40 AM

So is this further proof that Rove was the most overrated political "intellect" in American history (my view) or is this an example of some type of triple bank shot screw over he is attempting.

FWIW, Mark, I think the latter. I seriously doubt Rove would pen a WSJ article simply to share his insights with the world. With the Republicans riven by infighting between the party's libertarian, Christianist, and neocon wings, Rove has to be more than a little worried about his own legacy. A Clinton candidacy in the general election would very likely galvanize Republicans against her and keep the presidency in their hands. Ergo this piece, subtly big-upping Hillary and dismissing Obama - rather dishonestly, and in racially coded language ("lazy"). The WSJ seems a good place to reach fiscally conservative, socially liberal independents who might be tempted to break for Obama in the primaries.

I'm tempted to say the Obama campaign should use this - paint it as Rove's endorsement of Hillary. But I doubt that's their style, and it could easily backfire, should people pay too much attention to the "substance" of Rove's argument.

Posted by blooddiamonds | January 10, 2008 10:42 AM

I noted that, too. Mr. Machiavelli seemed awfully fond, almost fawning, about Hillary (for the first time in 7 years, I imagine). If I could dare think such a thing of the honorable Mr. Rove, I almost got the impression that he might want her to win the nomination. Doubtless because he's hoping earnestly for Democratic victory in November, and he figures the Republicans will be demoralized and disheartened running against her.

Or maybe I'm...missing something?

Posted by Eric | January 10, 2008 11:47 AM

Hi, Marc - -

Rove is crazy. There are no, none, none at all, campaign signs on lawns in Broward County, a 'D' hotbed. When Russert mentioned the upcoming 'D' primaries and showed the calendar on MTP last Sunday, Florida was missing. They are not talking about it in local media and it is absent from national media. We have a hot property tax amendment, and some local races, that might drive turnout. But if Obama or Clinton are concerned about FL, they haven't told me. (BTW - I am a D activist, delegate to the FL State 'D' convention, who is on both campaigns' email lists and have contributed to both - HRC a while ago, BHO recently).

Steve

Posted by Steve from Wilton Manors | January 10, 2008 12:42 PM

Rove is realistic.

There ain't no way that delegates from Florida will not be voting at the Convention.

Do you really think the Democratic Party would wish to lose Florida votes in all future presidential elections by disenfranchising their own party members at a Democractic presidential election?

Posted by CuriosityCat | January 10, 2008 2:35 PM

Mercy! Haven't we been Roved enough?

Posted by Elias | January 11, 2008 5:58 AM