For Karl Rove, Race-Baiting Still En Vogue

First, a short memo to Karl Rove: Before you start giving our candidates primers on how to conduct themselves, perhaps you should first tend to your party's disastrous gaggle of fearmongers, bloviators, and racists. That should be enough to keep you occupied.

Sadly, that is the least offensive part of Rove's drivel in today's Wall Street Journal. His commentary smacks of the desperation his party feels in the face of an Obama nomination and, in that solitary desperation, borders on overt racism.

There's more...

A Trap Set for Hillary

A Trap Set for Hillary

This diary is for those who believe that Hillary Clinton is the candidate, and President, whom the conservatives fear the most.

First of all, congratulations to Karl Rove. I have tried to figure the purpose of his open letters to Obama. I thought, cynically I admit, that they were some type of advice to Obama. But, if you remember, when Rove first went on the scene with his comments were all about Hillary, not Obama. How her negatives were too high to be elected. Of course, Rove never believed this. Just look at his top client. These letters never worked.

Then Rove starting writing public letters to Obama. Rove's widely publishes letters to Obama advised him that if he loses Iowa he is finished. The media narrative soon became that if Obama looses Iowa he looses the nomination. The reverse of this narrative, was that if Clinton wins Iowa, then she would score a knock out punch. This was a lure to bring Clinton into Iowa. Rove was writing to Clinton.

First, Iowa was Hillary's weakest state. She had double digit leads in all the other states, and nationally, but was consistently behind in Iowa. She only had a narrow lead for a couple of weeks Bill Clinton never campaigned there in 92 nor 96. The Clinton's have not done retail politics for over 15 years. Edwards had spent 3 years there attacking Hillary, and Obama's base was the giant neighboring state of Illinois. In Iowa, Clinton was entering a gauntlet with Edwards, Obama and all the other candidates thinking they had to prevent her to win Iowa in order to have a chance.

Second, Hillary and Bill spending all their time in Iowa increased its importance. So the media narrative was that Clinton is losing when she dipped a point behind in her weakest state. Never mind throughout the whole time, she had 20 point plus leads nationally and double digit leads in the next states.  She was a loser because she was loosing her weakest state. And by going to Iowa she fed this narrative.

How did Rove think he could get away with this? To paraphrase my hero James Madison: politics is the study of human nature. Let's look at 2004. Kerry's entire political life was centered on his heroic time in Vietnam and his Silver Medal. He thought it was beyond reproach. When Rove started to attack, Kerry did nothing because he would not dignify such a lowly attack with a response. Kerry's personal history made him blind to see he was vulnerable.

Fast forward to the 2008 election. For 15 years, Clinton's biggest battles have been with the GOP. In this election, their focus is beating the GOP: they fought the GOP in California to stop the electoral redistricting; she voted for the Iran resolution, knowing that the GOP was going to use that and immigration as part of their general election strategy.

A lure of knock out punch Iowa, giving the Clintons the luxury of focusing on their historical opponent the GOP, is really, really strong. With this in mind, Rove writes open letters in the media to her opponents saying if they lose Iowa, they loose the nomination. And the media follows this story. The narrative of a knock out punch is born. And Hillary follows.

The funny thing is that if Hillary stood out of Iowa, using the excuse that Edwards had spent 3 years there and Obama was from a neighboring state, this media narrative would not have had traction. It would have been a battle between Obama and Edwards in Iowa for the chance to face Hillary. They would have attacked on each other, and given the results on Thursday, Edwards very well might have won it. Edwards would have gotten a lot of the votes that went to Hillary. Hillary would be facing a battle scared Edwards and Obama in New Hampshire, with Hillary having the luxury of campaigning there for the last couple of months. In elections that I have been involved with, I have learned that strategy always trumps personality.

In 2000 Bill Clinton advised Gore to respect his opponent's skill; as if the election was karate match, where you bow before the fight to your opponent, beware of his strengths, and use this respect to beat him. I have to give respect where respect is due: Carl Rove is a kung fu master. Congratulations Mr. Rove on round one of the 2008 election.

Historical perspective of first term Presidents and Iowa:
1980: Ronald Reagan loses Iowa to George Bush
1988 George Bush loses in a distant third place to Robert Dole
1992 Bill Clinton loses Iowa with 3% of the votes.
2000 George W. Bush wins.

I certainly don't see a pattern where Iowa is a must win state. Hillary can still win this baby. I firmly believe that Hillary is our best candidate against the Republicans. She will also be the best President of all contenders. I hope she recovers and wins this for us all.

There's more...

Rove, Nader and Obama

Obama's campaign is similar to Rove's and Nader's 2000 campaign agaist Gore. Gore was a statesman whose experience was made a liability by Rove. Nader, in his turn, would deride the differences between Bush and Gore.

Campaign Strategy 1:

Bush called himself a compassionate conservative and an agent of change: someone who would change the way politics was done in Washington. Away from the partisan politics of the Clinton era. Someone who would cross the aisle and compromise with the Democrats. His complete lack of experience was an asset. And that Gore´s experience was part of that 90's era that we needed to leave and start over.

Obama calls himself a concillatory Democrat and agent of change: someone who would change the way politics is done in Washington. Away from the partisan politics of the Clinton era. Someone who would cross the aisle and compromise with the GOP. His complete lack of experience is an asset. And that Clinton's experience is part of the 90's era that we need to leave and start over.

Of course, this is an excellent campaign strategy by Bush. But with Obama, it strikes a stake at the heart of the Democratic Party. He is essentially saying that the Democrats in power were at fault for the partisan politics of the 90's. Conveniently, this ignores the fact that the partisan politics of the 90's was driven by the GOP - not by Clinton. Obama, is subtely blaming the Clintons, and by extension, the Democrats, for the partisan politics during the 90's and even the 2000's.

Campaign Strategy 2:

Nader's said that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. That both Bush and Gore would govern identically. And to vote for change, vote for Nader.

Obama says that Clinton is "Bush/Cheney lite." That both Bush and Clinton will govern the same. And to vote for change, vote for Obama.

First of all, this would be laughed at if it were not being said by Obama. But, because it is being said by a Democrat, it gives legitmacy to this narrative: that there is no difference between the Democrats and the GOP.

This strategy ignores one central fact: contrary to Bush's claims, the world would be a better place if Gore would have been sworn in on January 2001. And contrary to Obama's claims, the world will be a better place if Clinton, or any other Democrat, is sworn in on January 2009.

There's more...

Hillary stands strong behind Bill Shaheen

The Clinton campaign announced today that Billy Shaheen will stay on as co-chair of their New Hampshire campaign. They're standing strong behind Shaheen, who yesterday told the Washington Post that Barack Obama might be a crack dealer.

Will Obama challenge Hillary on this during the debate? Will Edwards challenge Hillary? I'm betting that they both do. Hillary will have a prepared (and canned) apology ready, but if Obama refuses to accept it, that could cause some fireworks.

There's more...

Richardson versus Rove

Apart from the fact that Governor Richardson has delivered  for New Mexico,  taken a pioneering stance on the war, and other issues - I thought it fair to ask the question, which candidate best deletes the instilled methodologies and practices of Karl Rove, either in campaign or office.  Viz. What would a celebrity deathmatch,  between Karl Rove and Bill Richardson?

Thanks to Rove's recent resignation, and of course, the GOP finally waking up to the fact that fact that he was given a candidate opposition in 2000 that had refused to associate himself with one of the most successful presidencies in the history of the United States, and had "Joementum" Joe Lieberman as the running mate - he was unable to deliver a knockout blow. I imagine, since he's the title champ -  Rove would get to walk around first, in the ring, holding the 2004 belt up in the air. Crickets. And then, both to their respective corners.

In the red, on the right. Weighing in at.. oh forget it. You don't want to know.. Karl Rove, the "architect" , would stand in the corner. At his side would be his trainer and friend, his grandfather  - wearing the  extensive, comfortable dealings with the Third Reich that are his public family history.

Rove would open up with partisanship, maybe use sexual orientation as a political weapon, and then, if he really was desperate he might even resort to breaking and entering (at least what we know of from his police record). And finally, he'll deliver the "catch phrase". Maybe it will be "freedom fries" Ok so maybe freedom fries wasn't his idea, I know he will deny it.  But we all know he tried to remove the blue christmas ornaments from the white house christmas tree. We have the negatives.

In the blue, coming in hard from the left, and striking at the center of the ring, Bill Richardson - Opening up with a workable 1-2-3 Iraq solution roundhouse kick.  200 billion dollars would slams back into American bank accounts!   He'd then back it up with a shattering early round voices against the war (2003 - three years early),  deliver a strong Homeland Security department(2002) and then maybe he'll reach over and pull the towel off the towelheaded  Osama Bin Laden (attempted to capture him by extradtion, 1998, negotiating with the Taliban). The crowd will go wild.

So the next round, would be campaign tactics. Rove is dangerous here. Did the opposition ever expect  the attack ad to bounce off , and a positive and extremely competitive Richardson campaign message re-define the tone of the entire campaign?

Rove would be flying his man over the Katrina death zone, and then staging photo ops with firemen while they're trying to work there. Then he would follow up with a smothering "sign a loyalty oath, to participate in this debate" whenever his boy gets out there.  Richardson, on the other hand, actually came down to Atlanta and met people. He sets up town halls. He goes to Town hall debates.  Rove would be fast with his hands, trying to select the best questions that would set up his deadly "catch phrase" pollster knockout.

But Bill Richardson would take it like a man and straight from the floor. If you go to any of his campaign events, I bet you'd find this out. Rove would reel back, having spent his last 20 million dollar punch and connecting with nothing. All of his best punches were sized for hitting Hillary down south of the belt. And rrrrrRove is down for the count. The decision is for Richardson.  Birds sing! Puppies Dance! Cheney admits Iraq was a mistake! (click the shirt for a free prize)

I honestly feel its a good metric. IMHO Rove's tactics and especially his ability to tie everything to corporate campaign contributions have changed the american political landscape. And as Nancy Pelosi said, there is a huge swamp to be drained. (still!)(hey she's off to a good start!). Unique among all other candidates, Richardson has changed the tone and content of this race , in my view, with his position to remove all troops from Iraq and then following up with a series of sharp campaign ads to back up the idea that the presidency actually includes , among many other things, diplomacy. Who here, really believes that Bill Richardson would be the kind of President that would not be able to figure out which door to open, during a press conference?  This was , or is a gedankenexperiment meant to test how well your candidate can obliterate the atmosphere of partisanship in DC. Try it with your candidate, it might help? Just speaking as a person from the south, be careful with this if you are an HRC fan,  I think the opposition was planning to hit a girl this year. >.)

And actually, the real reason I would go is so that I could see Bill Richardson wrap Karl Roves head up in the ropes, like a twist tie, and then flip him out over the crowd like a pudgy zeppelin.

Whats interesting, is that the the race in Iowa is tightening.  This might mean that one or all of the other candidates could do the same? Tag Team?   ... Did I miss any good moves here?

There's more...


Advertise Blogads