Is Karl Rove Working For The Clinton Campaign?

Either Karl Rove has joined the Clinton campaign as their advisor, or somebody over there has learned a lot from his standard campaign playbook. Because they're successfully using Rove's signature (and quite bizarrely effective) political tactic: attack your opponent not on his weak points, but on your weak points. This throws your opponent on defense, when he should be strongly playing offense.

The first indication of this came a few weeks ago when Hillary started criticizing Obama's Iraq war voting record. Even though he was against it from the beginning, Clinton points out that in the past few years Obama has voted for war funding! Well, so what? Unless I'm grossly mistaken, Clinton herself has voted for war funding in the same time period. And Clinton voted for the war's onset, which she's never apologized for (a weak point for her). But she tied Obama up in knots while he attempted to explain why this was such a ridiculous charge.

Most recently, she's on the attack because she says Obama supported single-payer health care in 2003. Once again, the words "so what?" spring to mind. Shouldn't that be considered a good thing in Democratic circles? Her own history when it comes to health care is pretty dismal. Once again, where she's weak, she goes on the offensive. Obama should shoot this down by saying: "I came from a position of believing in single-payer to where I am today, which is to get something done now that is politically possible. Hillary came from the position of the failed Hillarycare -- which was a compromise to begin with -- to where she is now. Which of us has higher hopes for the future of health care? You decide."

But the really big guns appeared from the Clinton camp over who has bolder ideas for the future of the Democratic Party and America. Once again, a weakness for Clinton and a strength for Obama. It's a further struggle over who is the bigger "change" agent -- which Obama has been largely winning. So once again, the Clinton campaign went on the offensive, but this time they may have gone too far, by deliberately misquoting what Barack actually said.

The whole thing started in an interview with the Reno Gazette Journal. There is an official 50-minute video of this interview up on their website, but no official transcript. According to the New York Times transcript, here is what Obama actually said:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people just tapped into -- he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.

I think we are in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going, aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having and they're not useful. And the Republican approach I think has played itself out.

I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies that are being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that. We've tried it. It's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example...so some of it's the times.

The Clinton camp heard this interview, and pounced. They took selective bits of what Obama said, and then they distorted them by saying Obama thought Republicans had "good" ideas or "better" ideas than Democrats. Obama tried to point this out, but it hasn't stopped them yet. Here is the transcript of a recent Clinton radio ad, for instance:

[Voiceover:] Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

[Barack Obama:] The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.

[Voiceover:] Really? Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?

[Barack Obama:] The Republicans were the party of ideas.

[Voiceover:] Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jump-starting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. and creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get America working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

Now, Barack's words in the original interview show that he slipped up on his basic framing of the issue. What he said wasn't as positive towards Reagan as Hillary (and the gleeful media) is trying to portray it as. And he failed to make his own case, falling back on passively talking about "the times." But he should have learned in Framing 101 that you never say something nice about an opponent without ending forcefully on why your brand is better.

Hillary isn't going to let up on the issue, as her radio ad shows. Barack needs to shoot this down, and quickly. It's quite easy to do so, as long as the media picks up the soundbite. The first opportunity Obama gets, he should either stick into a speech or answer an interview question with some version of the following:

Now, some people have been putting words into my mouth that I just did not say. I did say Ronald Reagan was a transformative president. He took the country in a new direction. That's just a historical fact, folks. Do I agree with the direction he took the country in? No, I do not. Do I agree with his policies? No, I do not. You don't have to agree with the policies of Reagan -- or JFK, for that matter -- to agree that they were bold presidents. I intend to be such a bold president. My argument was that the country is in one of those times when it truly is looking for transformation, and I think I'm the best one to achieve such a transformation. We can move this country in a better direction, and I can lead us there.

And there's a second instance where I'm being quoted as saying things I just did not say. Whether it's lazy journalists or underhanded politics, I wish people would get what I said right. I said that the Republicans sold themselves to America for the past 10 or 15 years as, quote, the party of ideas, unquote. But you know what I said after that? I said 'we've done that, we've tried that, it's not going to solve our problems.' You may not have heard that part of what I said. Because my opponent and her mouthpiece are suddenly telling people that I said Republican ideas were 'good ideas' or even 'better ideas' than Democrats have. The only problem with that is that I never said those words. Do I believe Republicans have good ideas? No, I do not. Do I believe Republicans have better ideas than Democrats? No, I do not. I believe that it is time for Democrats to stand up and proudly pronounce that WE are now 'the party of ideas' -- because WE have good ideas and WE have the better ideas. The Republicans want to drag us backward with their tired and failed ideas. We reject that notion, because we have the best ideas for how to take America forward!"

Which would put an end to the whole tempest in a teapot, since Obama, by all but calling Hillary a liar, refutes her basic notion and challenges her to quote him accurately. From this point on, any time Clinton brings this up, the media would hit her with "Obama says you're putting words in his mouth." Hillary would quickly learn that she's coming off looking worse than Barack in this exchange, and would stop bringing it up.

Obama needs to figure out how not to get trapped into playing defense when he should be strongly on the offensive. Because that is obviously the playbook the Clintons are using against him. And, in a larger sense, if he's going to win in November, he needs to prepare for much worse attacks against him by Republicans in the general election. Because they're coming.

Since Clinton has so effectively utilized the Karl Rove campaign strategy, Obama should start utilizing a Clinton strength -- the "War Room." Obama needs a crew of people watching the radar for such attacks by the Clinton camp. When the Clintons float a news story to the press, Obama has to counter it with facts, figures, and correct quotes immediately so that they get their side of the story into the same news cycle. Because if he can show that he is, in fact, stronger on these issues than Hillary herself -- in the same story -- then he'll be ready for the general election.

That way when the swift boaters appear on the horizon (as we all know they will), he'll be ready for them.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Zanti]

You're giving Karl Rove way too much credit. The guy's sole, mega-brilliant tactic consists of spreading vicious lies about someone and then denying having made them. All while smirking. Sheer genius. In fact, you'd think Rove invented lying, the way that his foes marvel over his evil tactics--I mean, his evil tactic.

That's all. Just come up with the worst, most damaging lies. No other tactics required.

Naturally, the idea is to let others spread the lies for you so that you can smirkily feign innocence, while making sure to point out at every opportunity that you're above the very tactics you're employing. It helps to have the head (and moral values) of a toddler--that is, if you want to pull a complete Rove.

Now, between Hillary and Barack, who's putting on the innocent act? Who's playing the above-it-all game while very obviously enjoying the scuffle? It's not Hillary. On the contrary, she's been attacking Barack very directly and very aggressively--the antithesis of the sissy-boy Rove approach, which consists of never facing your opponent.

And you would have Obama tell reporters, "I said that the Republicans sold themselves to America for the past 10 or 15 years as, quote, the party of ideas, unquote."

When his original statement went, quote, "I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years," unquote.

He said they WERE the party of ideas, not that they had CLAIMED to be such. Why have Barack put words in his mouth that he didn't say?

[Hud]

Not the Clintons its the News Media thats working from Rove's Playbook. I trust very few in the news business these days, why because "News" is not what we remember from 30 years ago, News Today is all about ratings and who's watching and are we making money. You look at Cable News and these Sleaze merchants will do almost anything to provoke a fight mischaracter a candiates views to bring in those 25-54 age group they need to sell commercials. News is Tabloid all the way. They have no standards and the "Fight" is what their looking for not the "Truth". Just watch MSNBC,CNN or Fox and it jumps off the screen at you. These shows are all about making the viewer mad, the more upset they make us the more you will tune in. It's very sad and I for one hope Newspapers can hold on to the small amount of honestly left in the 4th Estate.

[loslobo]

Who is swiftboating now? Karl Rove?

If Obama didn't want to be misquoted then maybe he should be clearer when the one time senator wants to compare himself to JFK and Reagan.

Of course Obama can mention Nixon and Clinton in the same breath and thats OK with you "democrats". Or if any one did the math 10 - 15 years ago, Bill was president for 8 of those years or did he mean 10-15 years from 1980?

Does anyone but me think that it was a poor attempt by comparing himself to Reagan he was pandering to Reaganites and tring to make himself something he is not? He is no JFK, no Reagan, no Paul Wellstone, hell he's not even a Cynthia McKinney.

The one picture that stands in my mind is both of them Hillary and Obama waiting, both of them waiting until the Iraq funding bill passed until voting. That should disqualify them both.

I don't know why I constantly have to defend the Clintons from you, because you said you were "fair and balanced" right? No I think you said you weren't going to shade your posts, right?

[altohone]

The Clinton strategy seems to be if they can't win, they'll make sure Obama can't either.

If that isn't the ultimate favor for the change resistant establishment, i don't know what is.


Let's not forget that Hillary's supporters handed her over $120 million bucks, so we can't rule out that they are encouraging these negative attacks and blatant lies... pressuring her campaign to ignore the pleas of party figures.

I'm not saying HillBill's quest for power isn't central, but with the direction of the country on the line, the establishment can't be pleased Hillary is flailing.

Even now, all of the "supporters" whose arms were twisted to join the "inevitable" campaign are probably squirming and causing a ruckus behind the scenes... to be a fly on the wall!

[Asp2]

I thought Obama turned back HIllary's attacks quite effectively in the SC debate. He actually integrated his own attack on the Clintons' truthiness problem with his overall critique of Clintonism. He has said that Bill wasn't "transformational" because he did not build a working majority; in SC he said in effect that the Clintons can't build a working majority because they undermine their credibility by playing fast and loose with the truth.

[LizM]

Senator Obama has been the most disingenuous when it comes to his rhetoric surrounding the issue of Iraq. I believe it has been his intention to so distort his own thinking on the Iraq resolution (October 2002) by portraying himself as the only candidate who has been against the war from the beginning while falsely accusing his rivals as having "voted for war" in a transparent effort to compensate for his own paucity of foreign policy judgement and prowess.

Senator Obama knows full well that a vote for the Iraq resolution authorizing the use of US military force cannot be equated with a vote for war or with de facto support for an Iraq invasion. He understands this, or he is not competent to be the next POTUS.

There has been so much spin over this resolution that the candidates may well not even know what the truth of the matter is anymore. John Edwards has bought so completely into this spin that, apparently, he actually believes that he DID vote for war. Who knows, maybe he did!

In any event, it will be the records of all three of the featherweight pretenders - Obama, Clinton and Edwards - on Iraq, inside and outside of the Senate, that will preclude any one of them from moving beyond the nomination.

[literate]

Isn't assembling a "war room" going on the defense? Whatever he does, some "expert" will criticize. I'm not sure what Obama can do in the face of the ruthless Clinton machine who will say and do ANYTHING to get back in the White House. How unfortunate that so many Democrats are so ignorant and blind to the value of Obama's candidacy. That they would support HRC and tolerate Bill's blustering and spin tactics is so disheartening. I'm an independent Obama supporter, who - like every single person I know (Democrat, Independent, Republicans, first-time voters etc.)- will NEVER vote for Clinton. Democrats should consider that. They seem to be too busy being brain-washed and misled by the Clintons and the media.

[MPeter]

Did you see this NYT articles? It will show you the hypocricy and divisveness of the Clintons. Take a look:
Kennedy Says Democrats Can Learn From Reagan
E-MAIL Print Save Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy E. J. DIONNE JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 7, 1989
LEAD: Senator Edward M. Kennedy today sharply criticized his party's 1988 Presidential campaign as being devoid of ideas and urged the Democrats to emulate former President Ronald Reagan's consistent sense of political purpose.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy today sharply criticized his party's 1988 Presidential campaign as being devoid of ideas and urged the Democrats to emulate former President Ronald Reagan's consistent sense of political purpose.

In an address at Yale University on the politics of ideas, Mr. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, also assailed President Bush for ''coming to office without larger goals and purposes.'' He said that the Republicans' lack of an agenda gave the Democrats an opening, if they could ''move beyond the New deal and the New Frontier and the Great Society.''

Mr. Kennedy's address added fuel to the Democratic debate about their failures in Presidential election, especially since Mr. Kennedy was so openly critical of the strategy pursued by Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, the party's nominee.

''I reject the notion that the Democratic ticket lost because of charges about Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance,'' Mr. Kennedy said, referring to the furloughed Massachusetts prisoner and to Mr. Dukakis's veto of a bill requiring pupils to recite the Pledge. ''I believe those issues defined the contest primarily because there was no compelling Democratic message.'' 'Ideology Was Missing'

[Countess]

The Clintons and the republicans are so much alike and know each other so well they have a pathological hatred for the other.

[DBBearden]

Bill Clinton had two terms in office to establish his legacy. If you want to know what that legacy was, visit: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/08/politics/main262484.shtmlLBJ on the other hand had one term in office. You might want to visit that era as well:http://www.nvr.org/pres_content.php?pro=pres&sec=timeline&subsec=4Now, do we have to wait four years to see what HRC will do? Check this out:http://prorev.com/connex.htm

[Notapathetic]

The Clintons ARE the Swiftboaters.

I just cringe at the thought that we will have another 8 years of ugliness if Hillary Clinton is elected. That would make 24 consecutive years of nasty, bickering people running the country.

Yuk!