I really don't get what it is with the Clinton campaign sometimes. Getting Joe Andrew's super-delegate endorsement is a minor coup for the Obama campaign. It certainly gives them some help in Indiana. But he's hardly a household name. So why is it that when Howard Wolfson gets asked about Andrew's switching his endorsement from Clinton to Obama on MSNBC, he questions
whether Andrews is really
Why go there?
Just take it on the chin and move on.
It's not that
big of an endorsement. And why don't these guys realize that this kind of dingbat sniveling does far more damage than it gains. I really think these kinds of Penn-esque jibes have done far more damage to Sen. Clinton than these folks realize.
: I'm sure I'll hear from Obama supporters on this one. My point is not to diminish Andrew's significance. And this certainly isn't a dig on him. What I'm saying is that this isn't like Obama being endorsed by someone like Gore where perhaps you'd think the Hillary team was so flummoxed that they were grasping for something to say. It's just the kind of thing where it's difficult to understand why the public response can't be, "Joe's a great guy. It's his decision. We've had three other big superdel endorsements in the last two days", whatever.)Late Update
: A few of you have written in to say, 'Well, obviously you don't see how big a deal Andrew is. Otherwise they wouldn't have reacted this way.' Actually, no, that's not it. The truth is that it doesn't matter how big a deal he is because this sort of nonsense only makes him look bigger. It's not a matter of him being a small-fry. It's about the fact that in some situations talking trash -- especially when the trash is transparent nonsense -- just makes you look stupid. In itself, it's not a felony in the press/communications law book. But it's silly and counterproductive and, as I've said, has done them much more harm than they realize.