Rove Already Answered the GOP's Question of Who's the Weaker Democrat
Former Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove already answered the head scratching question GOP strategists are pondering of whether Obama or Clinton is the easier mark for McCain. In an open memo which got almost no media play and zilch public attention last December, Rove spit out six things Obama should do to zap Clinton.
Obama has followed the script to the letter. He's unleashed an all-out no holds barred attack on Clinton's personality, record, and demeanor, and even tossed in some blatant racial digs at her and hubby Bill for supposedly demeaning Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, and of course himself. He's made bold, brash, and loud pitches and promises to do everything from end the war to clean up the economy. This fulfills Rove's admonition to him to stop sounding wishy-washy on the big ticket issues and create an aura and persona of confidence, expertise, and even invincibility about himself.
Rove and his anti-Clinton memo was sloughed off at the time as the blathering of a washed out GOP top gun operative who narrowly escaped an indictment. That's a fatal mistake. Rove didn't have an on the road to Damascus epiphany in lecturing Obama on how to beat Hillary. Obama is a moderate and centrist Democrat and that means he's still very much a sworn GOP political enemy. More importantly, Rove got it right twice about how to beat the Democrats. And his sizing up of Obama as the easiest Democratic mark was based on a hard headed assessment of Obama's weaknesses.
Rove viewed him as untested, inexperienced, way at the front on the learning curve on foreign policy matters, and with a checkered history. That included the hints, innuendos, and whispers about relations with his one time bankroller, the indicted Chicago financier Tony Rezko to his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Almost certainly, the GOP hit squads had the out of context YouTube tape of Wright's diatribes wound and ready to be looped endlessly in the fall. And just as certainly the squads are hard at work trying to figure out an angle to try and soil Obama with Rezko dirt. That card would also be played in the fall.
The Wright expose, however, was just too juicy, and media and public tongue wagging scandalous to be put off until the fall. Rezko may not be far behind.
Rove also figures on the X factor of race. Despite the raves Obama gets from many whites (remember his opponent is a woman, and one named Clinton), the X factor remains in how many white centrist and independents will cheer him in a head to head race with any white male GOP presidential candidate, in this case McCain. Rove banks not many.
Obama that is before the pre-Wright fiasco certainly seemed to make an idiot out of Rove's calculated, and cynical ploy to pump him up as the man the GOP could easily zap. Though Obama has followed his beat Hillary script to the letter, he also has shown enough political skills, stump charisma, and the prodigious ability to pile up a king's ransom campaign chest to be a bona fide competitive Democratic contender against McCain.
Wright may have changed that. Polls show Obama if not exactly in a free fall, he's suffered marked slippage against Clinton and McCain. But that hardly tags him as a GOP straw man, yet.
The exact last thing that Rove wants to see is a Democrat in the White House. A bickering, squabbling, negative sniping Obama and Clinton means a potentially bickering, squabbling, negative sniping Democratic Party. That will further fuel dissension, stoke bitter divisions and deflect attacks from Bush's Iraq war and a melt down economy and McCain's back door defense of those policies.
In the Rove scheme, the havoc created by telling one Democratic contender how to beat another Democratic contender would so sour the core supporters and enthusiasts for Clinton and Obama that if their candidate didn't get the nomination, they'd drag their feet getting to the polls on Election Day. That is if they got there at all. That would be the biggest plus of all for the GOP.
Rove gave Obama seemingly some priceless advice on beating Clinton. But the advice was not given to put Obama in the White House, but to make sure that he or Clinton doesn't get there. The debate then among some GOP strategists over which is the weaker Democrat is looking more facile even irrelevant by the minute. Neither Obama nor Clinton will get the needed 2,025 delegates to lock up the nomination. The decision will be tossed to the super delegates. That means more rancor and division. It also probably means not one but two mortally weakened Democratic nominees. That's Rove and the GOP's fondest dream.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You are correct Mr. Hutchinson!
"Rove gave Obama seemingly some priceless advice on beating Clinton. But the advice was not given to put Obama in the White House, but to make sure that he or Clinton doesn't get there" ...
BECAUSE HILLARY CLINTON IS THE TOUGHER CANDIDATE !!!
Hillary '08
Yes, after all, Karl Rove isn't a double dealer - we should take him at his word.
Bwahahahah
If parsing the words and intentions of Rove is your way of supporting Senator Clinton, well, good luck with that. Do you have some sort of decoder ring or crystal ball that tells you which of Rove's lies are REALLY false, as opposed to the lies that are just sorta' false?
http://www
Well, if Carl Rove said it, it must be true. Great premise.
Winkky winkky Earl. Sell them books.
fuck rove. he's not a dem delegate or voter. either hillary or barack would beat grandpa-mac. obama's winning and has basically sewn it up... guess it's gonna be obama then.
The Wright expose, however, was just too juicy, and media and public tongue wagging scandalous to be put off until the fall. Rezko may not be far behind."
**********
These comments alone caused me to doubt the honesty of your piece.
1.) The Wright flap has now been exposed for the outright fraud that it is:
Snippets from otherwise earnest remarks by a Pastor, comprising perhaps 90 seconds by a man with 20 years on the pulpit.
Please watch, or re-watch the unedited sermons.
2.) The VERY conservative Chicago Tribune has been pursuing the Rezko connection for 2 years, and has found nothing damning.
After Obama met Trib staff, they had this to say:
"...a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.”
The fact that Obama has inspired so many - call it a "cult" if you must - portends not a blind willingness to follow an inspirational speaker, but more a demand that our politicians speak TO us and not down AT us.
I've had 40 years in Chicago of observing of politics in America, beginning at 14 and attended my first rally: Grant Park '68. I've seen the best and worst of our politicians over the years, and I can separate wheat from chaff easily.
Obama IS for real.
Very interesting. Obama really is a fool. A fool eager for power and he is all the things he preaches against. I guess you can fool the majority of people in this country by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. That means we will always have a fraud for President. When will people be able to see that Obama is just another nasty politician? How long does this luv potion last?
It's astonishing to me that not one single Hillary backer that posts junk like, "Obama is a fool", ever back their statements with either facts to support their claim, or at the very least, mention the things that qualify Hillary for the job.
"That means we will always have a fraud for President.
**********
With all of the lies and innuendo Hil, Bill, and her campaign have dumped on the American voters about Obama, I trust you didn't write that with a straight face.
Earl, you're a few months short on this talking point. "This morning, the Clinton campaign has sent out a "Morning HUBdate" e-mail memo to its staff that says, in part: Just asking: Why is Karl Rove giving Senator Obama advice on how to win? Could it be that he thinks it will be easier for Republicans to run against the unknown gentleman from Illinois?" This is from December 2007....
Then there's this tidbit of advice Rove gave Hillary in February of this year. "Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument."
That piece of advice came shortly before Clinton's "Commander
Conservative jacka** Bill Kristol recently, openly advised that Hillary begin using the "politics of fear", to defeat Obama.
http://www
It seems that she took his words to heart.
I truly believe that there is no level to which the Hillary campaign is not willing to lower themselves to achieve victory.
You should get the award for the most falacious argument yet. You seem to enjoy drawing forced conclusions, all based on your own imagination, and then stating them as if there were some facts in there. I don't mind an opinion based on fact, but you have opinion based on imagination. Isn't that a Rovian tactic?
Without having read the other comments yet, I'll assume that know thinking person will take you seriously.
Where's the link to the Rove piece, please!
http://www
http://www
http://fir
"She's going to have to crystallize in people's minds why it is that she ought to be the president, their nominee for their party and therefore, their best hope for president, as opposed to him. Between now and the 22nd of April, there's a lot of days, but she's got to be focused and disciplined and appropriate.
At the beginning of last week, she was throwing these wild, you know, flailing movements, and it wasn't working for her. So she's got to be more disciplined — like she's been in the last 72 to 96 hours."
- Karl Rove http://www
Bullshit! If Obama is running a negative campaign I guess I am just too jaded to see it. Yes he has answered some smears with smears but I don’t believe he had stuck the first blow all that often. Also the Rove plan is not all that new. It is a proven plan in the era of modern electioneering. We live in a time that most people are informed by 30-second snippets of info and base their views on what pundits tell us the candidates actually mean when they say things. I believe that Clinton and McCain are the ultimate Washington insiders and therefore owe a lot of favors. Perhaps Obama is different and we need different. If we as a country will again allow the right wing to grab the presidency with a batshit-crazy old coot and a bag full of dirty tricks, then we deserve whatever we get.
Interesting subject choice given your candidate's Bosnia "blip". You are one funny man Earl.
The Democratic party must get this thing together. A McCain/Rice ticket will be unbeatable in the general election if the Democrats don't get their ticket picked: NOW. Don't think that McCain won't pick Rice as the antidote to either Obama or Clinton, and don't think it won't work. The only thing that can overcome that ticket is an Obama/Clinton ticket with a strong role for VP Clinton.
You do not have to be Karl Rove (be thankful you're not) to have seen any of these things. A couple of other things are increasingly obvious as well. First, neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to go into the convention with a majority of delegates. The outcome will have to be brokered. Second, neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to win in November at the rate things are going unless McCain self-destructs in some fashion (always a possibility). Given these facts, I would suggest we start getting real about politics and about the art of the deal. Crying that "we wuz robbed" is not an option if we give a damn about he country. Either come together, live with a second or third choice (i.e. that's politics!), or kiss the elecetion and the country goodbye. If you are prepared to do the latter in a fit of Obamamania or Hillarymania, you are every bit as evil as Karl Rove. These difficult times require us to be smarter, better, and more selfless than that! Children throw fits, adults take responsibility for working through difficult situations and disappointments.
Obama has "unleashed an all-out no holds barred attack on Clinton's personalit
I didn't need him to back that "assertion" up...it isn't "seemingly absurd", it's obvious. Obama has been effectively bashing Hillary which has resulted in his supporters being very hateful and vitriolic toward anyone who supports Hillary. Take a peek at D-kos, and other places that are strongly pro-Obama. Obama has been very effective in stating his (strategic) opinions of Hillary's "character" as fact, and his supporters have run with it.
How about a single example? That is what is always missing! You like to make things up, don't you?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
