Rove Probably Isn't Afraid Of Barack Obama

There's something about Karl Rove that summons everybody's inner James Jesus Angleton, where every comment is automatically assumed to be part of an elabroate disinformation.

Associates of Rove's say he believes Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. They say he does not believe Barack Obama or John Edwards will be the nominee.

And -- more importantly, If Rove were trying to drive Democrats toward Hillary Clinton, wouldn't he label Clinton an "anti-war liberal" rather than echo the themes that are currently being employed by Clinton's opponents? (i.e., she's too polarizing), etc.

Doesn’t that just create a situation where Clinton is being hit from the left and right at the same time? How does that drive Democrats to her?

As Sen. Obama's aides have pointed out, it probably doesn't hurt Obama's contention that Clinton represents the politics of polarization when Karl Rove calls her out.

So maybe Rove tried to attack John Kerry in 2004 to divert attention from Sen. John Edwards. Did it work? Did any Democrat listen to Rove? Does anyone remember Rove's attacks being a turning point in the Democratic primary race?

Comments

Marc Ambinder is trying to help Hillary Clinton by saying that Kal Rove's attacks on her were not intended...

Hold on, I'm confused now.

Posted by goethean | August 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Doesn’t that just create a situation where Clinton is being hit from the left and right at the same time? How does that drive Democrats to her?

The "poor abused woman" sympathy vote?

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by Nick Kasoff | August 20, 2007 12:32 PM

Can anyone imagine Hillary being president for eight years? The Democratic party might as well kiss their new majorities goodbye. She would absolutely devastate the democratic party at the local level. The work Howard Dean and and the DNC have done will all be for naught. Rove knows Hillary will inject life back into the GOP if she is the dem nominee or president. Please give me Obama, Edwards or Richardson. We can take that.

Posted by Aaron Simons | August 20, 2007 12:51 PM

Regardless of who he believes will win the nomination, of course Rove is afraid of Obama. Who did the Republicans get killed with last year? Independents. Who is less likely to win independents, Obama or Clinton?

Posted by Algernon | August 20, 2007 1:11 PM

Doesn’t that just create a situation where Clinton is being hit from the left and right at the same time? How does that drive Democrats to her?

Easy. Karl Rove is a very hated man among Democrats. When he criticzes her it only helps her in the eyes of Democratic voters. By attacking her on themes currently being used by her opponents it helps her twice--once because the evil Karl Rove is attacking her, and again because he inoculates her against the very criticisms her opponents were using. Now that Karl Rove has said it her opponents can either stop saying it or be accused of the same kind of thinking as Rove.

So maybe Rove tried to attack John Kerry in 2004 to divert attention from Sen. John Edwards. Did it work? Did any Democrat listen to Rove? Does anyone remember Rove's attacks being a turning point in the Democratic primary race?

Yes to all of the above, although "turning point" might be too strong a word. His attacks on Kerry helped John Kerry to lock up the nomination. Hopefully Democrats will be a little smarter and less easily manipulated this time.

Posted by Mystylplx | August 20, 2007 1:15 PM

Thank you for bringing sense to this latest ridiculous line of discussion. I wish our side would just forget about Karl Rove at this point - he is unlikely to be a factor in the next election at all, and if he's doing anything in his comments about Hillary, it's trying to stay relevant. And even if he does have some Grand Plan - who cares? We have to nominate the person we want, period. Let them figure out how to run against us once we've made our decision.

You'd think after the massive losses in 2006 that fewer people would care what Karl Rove thinks.

Posted by cms | August 20, 2007 1:26 PM

Rove needs to realize that a candidate that GOP operatives can't mold to their own benefit is a bad thing for them. Hillary is polarizing, but she'll never get Swiftboated.

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by mpp | August 20, 2007 1:45 PM

Hillary will never get swiftboated? Maybe you're right. But that's ecause the GOP won't have to make things up to shoot down her candidacy. It's all out there already, they just have to go out and collect all the old skeletons and parade them once again for the voters to remember that the Clintons were corrupt and practiced divisive poltiics long before Rove went to bat for W.

Posted by wizinit | August 20, 2007 2:37 PM

Edwards the strongest candidate in 2004?

Please!

Edwards couldn't even deliver his own home state to the Dems!

Posted by JoeCHI | August 20, 2007 2:44 PM

They know they would have a field day with Obama, so that's why they're bashing Hillary early and often. Pro-Castro in Florida? Talking about arugula and Whole Foods? YouTube video of the district where Obama exercised his great political skills? His public housing causes in shambles?

Posted by Kap | August 20, 2007 3:04 PM

Rove is the anti-Christ.

Posted by Ben | August 20, 2007 3:09 PM

Regardless of who he believes will win the nomination, of course Rove is afraid of Obama. Who did the Republicans get killed with last year? Independents. Who is less likely to win independents, Obama or Clinton?

Exxxxxxactly.

Posted by Bryan Barash | August 20, 2007 3:24 PM

The only place Rove is going, is to work his special brand of nasty on the 2008 election. He was cut loose to buoy up the GOP's chances, take it to the bank. Whoever said he is helping Clinton in a calculated fashion, is spot on. Edwards, and Obama to some degree are the biggest threat to the Repubs in the General. Why do you think the MSM has cast Clinton with the inevitablity mantle? She will be a heaven sent gift to the Republicans in 08'She cannot win!

Posted by Asher | August 20, 2007 4:54 PM

The only Democrat Rove fears is John Edwards, just like he feared Edwards in 2004.

Dudes over at the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/20/BL2007082000872.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 ) and Newsday ( http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usrove205339240aug20,0,4317431.story ) finally mentioned it today.

Same thing is true today. The only Democrat the Republicans are afraid of is John Edwards.

They hope and pray that the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Clinton or Obama, and Rove's little "playfight" with Hillary Clinton was always about creating that same knee-jerk reaction that "surface thinkers" have when it looks like, "ooh, a Democrat is being attacked."

If they stopped for a second and learned to think, they wouldn't keep getting fooled.

Posted by OEST | August 20, 2007 5:25 PM

Let's nip this ignorance in the bud right now:

Edwards the strongest candidate in 2004?
Please!
Edwards couldn't even deliver his own home state to the Dems!
Posted by JoeCHI | August 20, 2007 2:44 PM

PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE PERSON AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET!!!

John Edwards had an approval rating in the state of North Carolina in July 2004 of greater than 50%. He was NOT the problem with that ticket. If the ticket had been reversed, Edwards would have won North Carolina just like Democratic Governor Mike Easely won North Carolina...the same Democratic Governor who said he didn't want to be seen anywhere near John Kerry, for fear that Kerry would kill him in NC. So, if NC's Democratic Governor felt that way, how do you think many other NC Democrats felt?

Secondly, how many states did Dick Cheney win or lose for George W. Bush?

Most people will say "ZERO." So, if Cheney didn't win or lose any states for Bush, why do some Democrats want to blame Edwards for any states that Kerry did not win?

The 2004 election was not a referendum on "EDWARDS VERSUS CHENEY," it was one on Bush versus Kerry.

People vote for the person at the top of the ticket.

PBS did a deliberative "STUDY" of the 2004 election that proved that John Edwards was more electable than John Kerry.

The results of that study found Kerry and Bush tied at 47%.

It found Edwards beating Bush 48% to 37%, because Edwards took votes away from Bush and opened other voters up to the possibility of voting against Bush.

But don't let the facts beat some brains into your head JoeCHI. I'm sick of hearing that same "ignorant" statement from Democrats who know nothing about North Carolina, and apparently nothing about politics or the 2004 election.

Posted by OEST | August 20, 2007 5:34 PM

Sorry about my tone towards JoeCHI, but I just have the same types of "knee jerk reactions" to illogical and uninformed statements that some Democrats have towards an attack on a Democrat from a Republican.

I can't stand Karl Rove, but the fact is, he's absolutely correct about Hillary Clinton's negatives, even though her "will not vote for" numbers are a bigger problem for her than her negatives.

If the Democrats nominate her, there's a chance that she might squeak into the White House, but she'll lose more than 60 seats in the House or Representaties, and the incumbent Democrats in 2008 will be in serious trouble.

Posted by OEST | August 20, 2007 6:43 PM

House OF REPRESENTATIVES

Posted by OEST | August 20, 2007 6:44 PM

I'm not saying that you're crazy, OEST. But one of us is sitting at home in a tinfoil hat, and it ain't me!

That said, the fact remains that Edwards did not win his home state when he was on the Democratic ticket in November 2004.

And that is a matter of the public record, even as your tinfoil hat may not be. ;)

Posted by JoeCHI | August 20, 2007 8:24 PM

that's what i've been saying for a while now. He wouldn't be using this argument if he is trying to rally dems for her. This argument is one that dems use against Sen Clinton.

Obama would be easy to beat, he doesn't have a record of winning. Hillary does, and even Rove mentioned before how jealous he was of her huge turnout machine. hillary will get a big turnout in 08, she's got the best organization of any campaign out there, and the most discipline.

Posted by Rigso | August 20, 2007 8:43 PM

If Rove called Hillary a liberal nothing would happen. the right always does it to begin with and the party is still split over her.
I read one theory that Rove knows Hillary is the most likely to keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely and therefore help preserve bush's legacy.
It is interesting knowing what a hawk she is and that she will probably get us into wars if elected.
But, either way, he wants to make sure clinton is the nominee regardless of his reason. And it's sure to be for some nefarious reason.
My only worry regardless of Rove, is that the democrats are going to be stupid again and nominate, like they have for the past 25 years, the most unlikable, unappealing and corporate DLC candidate running. And like always, they will sit around crying about why they lost another election.
Me, I will become an independent if Hillary is nominated. I am sick and tired of the sheer denseness of my party and that they never seem to learn from their mistakes. Plus, Hillary is just not going to get my vote, ever.

Posted by vwcat | August 20, 2007 9:05 PM

Well said Rigso--

Also, the answer to Aaron's question: "Can anyone imagine Hillary being president for eight years?" is YES, many people can. They just may not be quite as doctrinaire about which litmus tests have to passed to call yourself a progressive.

The times in this nation when presidents on either ideological wing have been successful are few. Like it or not, successful presidents in this system are closer to the center and knoew how the system works.

Hilllary will win the nomination, she will win the presidency, and the democratic party will be healthier for it.

Posted by cwille | August 20, 2007 9:07 PM

John Kerry won nomination because Democrats thought that as a war-hero and with national security credentials will be immune to Republican attacks. John Kerry could not have done anything about swift-boat because if he had tried he would be reinforcing the fundamental theme of the smear campaign itself. When Hilary Clinton says that she knows how to defeat Republican attack machine, she is referring to the success of her husband. Bill Clinton is charming, magnetic, eloquent, cerebral and above all, very likeable. Hilary is strong, tough and intelligent but stiff and far less likeable. In 2000, Bush defeated Al Gore only because he is more charming and likeable.

The edge Democrats have over Republicans is the war. Since Hilary voted for the war, her campaign, assuming that she wins nomination is not going to be about war but how to end the war. Republican response will be that she co-authored the war by voting for it and hence a defeatist and a quitter par excellence who wants to abandon ship midway. That will neutralize the edge Democrats have over Republicans. Hilary will have hard time winning the general election because the campaigns against her will referendum on character, family value and past scandals. In the heartland of America, most people are not going to vote for a candidate that is in open-marriage. Hilary is coasting in this primary because no candidate will go to the gutter to point her character flaws without alienating Democratic base.
This is a thought.

Posted by Edward | August 20, 2007 9:10 PM

I think everyone should just acknowledge that Joechi is a Hillarybot. Hillarybots sole purpose in life is to trash anyone not Hillary.
Ignore him.

Posted by vwcat | August 20, 2007 9:10 PM

WE HAVE ENOUGH SUFFERING FROM WAR OF BUSH AND ECONOMY- PEOPLE WIDE UP NOW LEFT AND RIGHT-THEIR POCKET IS EMOPTY AND TROUBLE SOME WAR NON STOP- NEVER SOLVE IT- SO AMERICA?MAERICAN POEPLW WE ANOYHER ANOTHER CHANCE NEXT TIME- WE VOTE DEM. FOR PRES O8 OK?

Posted by PRISCELA | August 20, 2007 10:19 PM

The reason there are so many anti-Hillary comments
is that many ignorant Americans especially the males cannot accept a female as their president and cite all sorts other reasons to hide their real feelings. This is in spite of the fact that for the last 20 years or more many other countries have elected a female as their president or prime minister, even a Muslim country
like Pakistan at one time and they have done no worse than their male counterparts if not better in many instances.

Hillary offers a real understanding of what needs to be done for America. Obama offers hope [he will make a good preacher not sure whether he can be a strong and down-to-earth president]

Posted by kenneo | August 20, 2007 11:56 PM

"Who is less likely to win independents, Obama or Clinton?"

Check the latest polls. Hillary is doing better with independents than Obama.

Posted by DonB | August 21, 2007 12:21 AM

Rove attacked because he knows Hillary is going to win.

Edwards campaign should stop while there ahead, he couldn't do it in 2004 - he surely won't now.

Barack Hussein Obama is just an inexperienced stuttering monkey. Its no surprise hes been consistently dropping in the polls, has twice as many FEWER endorsements than Hillary, and has embarrasingly lost all the drbatrs thus far.

Im excited too see 8 years of Hillary. After 8 years of Bush, we need Hillary.

I trust her, shes experienced and intelligent.

Go Hillary!

Posted by Armando Falcon | August 21, 2007 2:34 AM

Rove attacked because he knows Hillary is going to win.

Edwards campaign should stop while there ahead, he couldn't do it in 2004 - he surely won't now.

Barack Hussein Obama is just an inexperienced stuttering monkey. Its no surprise hes been consistently dropping in the polls, has twice as many FEWER endorsements than Hillary, and has embarrasingly lost all the drbatrs thus far.

Im excited too see 8 years of Hillary. After 8 years of Bush, we need Hillary.

I trust her, shes experienced and intelligent.

Go Hillary!

Posted by Armando Falcon | August 21, 2007 2:34 AM

Obama has done well for someone who was coaxed in the race by Oprah Winfrey. He will be a force to reckon with in the future. He is a little pre-mature for the presidency at this time. Edwards is probably calling all his shots, I would have recommended hiring a political strategist. The poverty thing was out of touch with reality. Clinton has been planning this campaign for years. She has a huge political organization in most parts of the country that has taken years to build. With the failed Bush presidency, this creates a once in a lifetime opportunity for her.

Posted by willie | August 21, 2007 6:41 AM

Don't read too much into Karl Rove, if he is considered "brilliant", its because of his simplicity. He is a student of politics and well spoken. He attacks the strength of the opponents. The "opponent" right now is the Democratic party, and the head of the snake is the front runner. Clinton may have her faults but she brings a huge following to the table. Giuliani or Thompson will need all the Karl Rove they can get to squeak out an election.

Posted by slick willie | August 21, 2007 6:56 AM

Don't read too much into Karl Rove, if he is considered "brilliant", its because of his simplicity. He is a student of politics and well spoken. He attacks the strength of the opponents. The "opponent" right now is the Democratic party, and the head of the snake is the front runner. Clinton may have her faults but she brings a huge following to the table. Giuliani or Thompson will need all the Karl Rove they can get to squeak out an election.

Posted by slick willie | August 21, 2007 6:57 AM

how can hillary be president and lead the country, she did'nt even know her husband was having a affair in of all places in the ovel office. she is either stupid or cunning, it is either obama or edwards not hillary. another thing to cosider, what if her husband would die, where does that leave her, ----all alone.

Posted by tony sacco | August 21, 2007 9:41 AM

to RIGSO---it is a shame in this country that a HUGE POLITICAL MACHINE- can elect a president and not the best person. may be one day money will not matter who is best to lead our country.

you want hillary i want edwards and hillary has the money and so she wins. tony sacco

Posted by tony sacco | August 21, 2007 9:54 AM

I'm not saying that you're crazy, OEST. But one of us is sitting at home in a tinfoil hat, and it ain't me!

That said, the fact remains that Edwards did not win his home state when he was on the Democratic ticket in November 2004.

And that is a matter of the public record, even as your tinfoil hat may not be. ;)

Posted by JoeCHI | August 20, 2007 8:24 PM

John Edwards didn't win or lose his home state, because he wasn't at the top of the ticket.

Did Dick Cheney win Iowa for Bush?

Did Dick Cheney lose Minnesota for Bush?

If someone other than Dick Cheney would have bene on Bush's ticket, would Bush have lost Wyoming?

If someone other than John Edwards had been on John Kerry's ticket, say JESUS CHRIST, would Kerry have won a state where not even the Governor of that state wanted to be seen with him, because he knew that Kerry was poison in that state? Excuse me, but putting food coloring (John Edwards) in a glass of Clorox (John Kerry in NC), isn't going to all of a sudden make that Clorox drinkable (make NC winnable).

People vote for the person at the top of the ticket. John Edwards was viewed favorable in NC in 2004, and he's still the only Democrat running to win a general election state in the south.

Posted by OEST | August 21, 2007 10:20 AM

that's what i've been saying for a while now. He wouldn't be using this argument if he is trying to rally dems for her. This argument is one that dems use against Sen Clinton.

Obama would be easy to beat, he doesn't have a record of winning. Hillary does, and even Rove mentioned before how jealous he was of her huge turnout machine. hillary will get a big turnout in 08, she's got the best organization of any campaign out there, and the most discipline.

Posted by Rigso | August 20, 2007 8:43 PM

Yes, she would get a huge turnout FROM REPUBLICANS to vote in hoards against her. She is a polarizing candidate, who would even further polarize the country.

If she is nominated, the Democrats will have a 60+ seat deficit in the House of Representatives come 2009, and the GOP will control the Senate by more than 5 seats.

She is poison to the Democrats, whether she'd be able to "squeak out" a victory or not.

If the Democrats want to win "big," and go into 2009 with a governing majority in both houses of Congress, they need to nominate John Edwards, who has a record of beating Republicans in the south. He beat an incumbent Republican in North Carolina, and even though that Republicans was unpopular, he was backed by the popular "Jesse Helms," and John Edwards won.

Hillary Clinton ran to NY to run for the Senate in a place where she knew that she couldn't lose. She doesn't know how to do anything but game the system, as is evident by the fact that she has more than enough surrogates in the media to smear Edwards and Obama, while looking like she has nothing to do with it. Plenty of people know that all of these fake scandals coming out against Edwards are being pushed by the Clintons, even though they can do it without implicating themselves, if it looks like their stooges on television or at the NY Post, or elsewhere, are the ones doing it.

Look at all of these Republican Senate seats up for re-election in 2008.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/2008_Senate_election_map.png

If the Democrats want to win bigh in 2008, they'll go with John Edwards who can help the Democrats pick up SOME SENATE SEATS in all of those red states, instead of the self-absorbed Hillary Clinton who might squeak out a Presidential victory and lose everything else in the process, by mobilizing the GOP base to turn out and vote for Republicans up and down the ticket.

Posted by OEST | August 21, 2007 10:30 AM

Here's the short of it: This is personal for Rove. He knows -- and, hell, we all should know by now -- that a Clinton victory absolutely demolishes what is left of any legacy Rove could have enjoyed. To have the hope of a "Republican majority" forever defeated in the end by the Democrat the GOP most villified makes Rove something significantly less than a footnote in history.

Posted by Alwayscorrect | August 21, 2007 11:58 AM

(Clinton)
This high negative rating is no stronger than her high positive rating. The "get out the vote" for the Republican party will be no stronger than the Democratic party "get out the vote". Payback is hell. The Democrats are not looking to "bring the country together", they are looking for red meat, Clinton will hand it to them.

Posted by ynot | August 21, 2007 1:17 PM

To my eye, it looks like Republicans win by getting people to vote AGAINST the Democratic candidate instead of FOR the Republican. Just look at 2004. Bush was hardly riding high at that point... he'd revealed himself to be, well, himself in the preceding four years and there was very little in the way of enthusiasm for him even among Republicans.

Then the Republican attack machine spun into action against Kerry, flip-flop chants started, the Swift-boat revved up and Kerry became a MSM joke. Consequently, a lot of people held their nose and reluctantly pulled the Bush lever that didn't really want to.

THAT, my friends, is the problem with a Hillary candidacy.

By the time the Republicans are finished, the "average American" is going to see Hillary Clinton as nothing but negatives... and they will vote against her in droves, regardless of who the Republicans put up.

Posted by hosswire | August 22, 2007 2:52 PM