Karl Rove on Hillary & Obama
Perhaps so many on the left are so obsessed with Karl Rove because of his keen insight into political trends and candidates. Well, that combined with his partisan affiliation and electoral success.
If he were on the left, they’d love him.
There seems to be a strong consensus among conservative bloggers, pundits and other politicos that were the Democrats to nominate someone other than the two remaining candidates, Senator Obama and Mrs. Clinton, the race wouldn’t even be close and as I put it in a recent post, the GOP would be toast in 2008.
Yesterday in a panel on Campaign 2008 at the Los Angeles Festival of Books, Hugh Hewitt said that if former Virginia Senator Mark Warner of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh were the Democratic nominee, either would win this election in a walk.
What distinguishes Karl Rove is his ability to understand exactly why the two leading Democrats are weak candidates. In a column last Thursday for the Wall Street Journal, he wrote:
Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.
And he also understands her rival’s flaws. Click on more to read the full excerpt:
Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are “bitter” and therefore “cling” to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America’s chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.
His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.
Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King’s “fierce urgency of now” in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.
Just read the whole thing to get a sense of Rove’s genius. It’s not in his dirty tricks, but in his understanding of how ideas and personalities play out in the political realm.
And make sure to read Rove’s advice to Senator Obama (via RealClearPolitics). If the Democratic frontrunner wants to win, he’d be wise to read it.
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Karl Rove on Hillary & Obama [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Hugh Hewitt & Rober Scheer Square off at LA Book Fair — April 28, 2008 @ 4:10 pm - April 28, 2008
If I were stuck with Bob “0-13″ Shrum, I’d be pissed too.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 28, 2008 @ 5:22 pm - April 28, 2008
I personally think Hillary is becoming a better canidate from this process, even if her negatives are still higher than the other two. She has been tested and pushed to the brink of defeat and not collasped, which says something about her determination (or ambition if you want). I think her negatives will come down in the summer if she becomes the nominee, through some justifable way, when the base comes home. I personally wonder how much of these ratings affect when she is tieing or beating McCain, raising a lot of cash, and is moving to beat Obama in IN and close the gap in NC.
Obama seems much more worse for wear, he still hasn’t been able to expand his base…it actually seems to be shrinking with each of these contests. He is losing women still, losing white voters, losing low income, losing older voters. If he is suppose to be a uniter, how come he can’t even unite his own party behind him?
And yes, I wish we had a left version of Rove…
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — April 28, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - April 28, 2008
I agree she has become a stronger candidate. Even Bill Kristol said as much in today’s New York Times.
The problem remains her negatives. Will last-minute deciders go against her as they did against Obama?
He may not be able to unite his party behind him, but I doubt she’ll be able to either.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 28, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - April 28, 2008
Hillary is becoming a stronger more formidable candidate. I of course want McCain to win. Yet as much as I dislike her, I fear her a little less as a president than Obama.
She hasn’t been given the chance to move back to the center, but were she to win, she like her husband, would most probably rule much more from the center.
Meanwhile, all I can hope is that is Obama is thrown under the bus, (how poetic, since he’s done it to others), many of his followers will simply not come out to vote.
I know we don’t hear much from McCain, but he has been campaigning in the deep south, among black voters, he’s doing something right.
Comment by Leah — April 28, 2008 @ 6:31 pm - April 28, 2008
Not sure if the main post already linked this, but Rove’s new column on Obama is even better IMO: My Advice for Barack Obama.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 28, 2008 @ 8:56 pm - April 28, 2008
I still don’t see how Hillary could win a general election. Her husband a far better campaigner who made emotional connections with his base, never got 50% of the vote. Blacks habitually find reasons to not vote on election day. If Barack is beaten back by Hillary a Republican could win because of depressed black turnout.
Obama was such an unknown quantity back before super tuesday. Now every week what we find out is information that hurts his campaign, doesnt’ help it. He had a chance to have a sister solja moment a month ago, he could have dismissed his mad racist preacher and role model as a man with growing dementia. He chose instead to protect him. Politics ain’t beanball. He will pay a heavy price. I wish the American public was more educated and payed closer attention to politics. But they don’t need to pay all the close attention to make sense of the Barack/Rev Wright marriage.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 28, 2008 @ 9:02 pm - April 28, 2008
“Blacks habitually find reasons to not vote on election day” - No offense intended Gene, but I question that claim.
“I still don’t see how Hillary could win a general election.” - I agree there. In fact, barring some big new scandal on McCain, I don’t see how either Hillary or Obama can beat him in the end. Both are far to the Left and carry high negatives / much baggage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 28, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - April 28, 2008
Apparently one poll has her beating McCain by 9%, while Obama is only able to tie him. If this poll turns into a trend, and Obama continues to lose his sheen, I suspect superdelegates will start moving back to Hillary. I hope so.
Because the only reason Hillary is enjoying success right now is because for some unexplained reason no one has or is attacking her long history of corruption. Something that will change if she becomes the nominee. And when America is reminded just how incredibly corrupt she and her husband are, she will be toast.
Comment by American Elephant — April 28, 2008 @ 11:37 pm - April 28, 2008
Until about 3 months ago, I seriously thought that the GOP was toast. Now, it looks like the Dems are throwing this away which amazes me. I’m not complaining mind you, but am simply stunned by the level of their incompetence and stupidity.
Comment by John — April 29, 2008 @ 11:44 am - April 29, 2008
It’s actually pretty predictable, John.
All the Democrats have to offer is hatred of and opposition to. Not a one of them can articulate anything close to a vision or a strategy; they just scream about how anti-Bush and anti-Republican they are.
And when a party whose entire strategy is stoking hatred and demonization of others has conflicts, the only thing it can do is tear itself into tiny Balkanized bits.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - April 29, 2008
John: I was convinced Obama was going to sleepwalk his way into the White House.. until about two months ago, I’ve been increasingly confident that this guy will repulse the country.
And after the sideshow at the National Press Club by his pastor i think there is no way he can win.
BTW: Have you people noticed the massive conspiracy theorizing about what Wright is up to? Some people think Wright is actually acting on orders by Clinton to destroy Obama.
The Democrats are so unprincipled that I can actually believe that that could be true.
Comment by Vince P — April 29, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - April 29, 2008
I think Gingrich has the best explanation of Wright’s behavior: He is just a classic “angry person”, and a person who loves the spotlight.
It is interesting how the Left is now turning on Wright. Not because they mind Wright’s hateful bigotry and lunacy, mind you, but because it’s clearly reached the point where Wright is damaging Obama’s prospects.
Even Andrew Sullivan finally got a clue yesterday… after weeks of characterizing as “bigot”, yadda yadda, anyone who would dare to notice Wright’s bigotry and lunacy or to question Obama’s judgment in choosing Wright as his pastor.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 29, 2008 @ 1:48 pm - April 29, 2008
Against a 72 year old white man this SHOULD have been a huge Democrat year. Also look at pre election polls, they consistently show any Republican losing by 3-10 points more than the actual election day margins. For MCCain to be tied now has got to be crushing to the Dems. And who is the candidate who is still more of a blank slate to be defined between now and November? Why it is Obama. Certainly not McCain. Sen McCain sits on these busses and answers the presses questions til they are bored and spent. It is Barack who dodges the press, Fox News and now refuses to debate. You gotta admit the Democrats are the party of dumb and dumber.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 29, 2008 @ 2:52 pm - April 29, 2008
Now Obama is on TV trying to repudiate Pastor Wright… no one believes you Obama.. you were right there next to this guy for 20 years… the only thing that is motivating your new found difference with Wright is your electorial prospects.
Obama is stuttering so much right now, it’s funny.
He just said right now that what Wright said yesterday contradicts EVERYTHING that Obama believes in.
What a liar!!!!! Nothing that Wright said yesterday is new. The things Wright said yesterday are the things he has always said.
I love it. Keep talking Obama… keep talking… you might need a shovel because I think the one you’re using now is getting dull you’re digging so much.
Comment by Vince P — April 29, 2008 @ 2:54 pm - April 29, 2008
My favorite news quote of the day:
Obama stated flatly that he doesn’t share the views of the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years.
Who knew the AP was so good at dry, acerbic wit?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 29, 2008 @ 4:01 pm - April 29, 2008
But here’s the question. Suppose Obama and Wright are getting into a food fight here. Does it help Obama or hurt him? Will most people now forgive Obama for Wright, or merely be reminded of Obama’s 20-year bout of poor judgment?
I suppose a lot of it depends on *what* Wright remarks Obama repudiates, or how. Last time, Obama said “I unequivocally repudiate the remarks that people find controversial”. Which isn’t exactly unequivocal, i.e., he never bothered to say WHICH remarks he disagreed with. Is Obama doing the same game now?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 29, 2008 @ 4:10 pm - April 29, 2008
By Ace’s coverage, Obama has now disowned Wright now - after saying last month that he could never: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/261336.php
I wonder if Wright will take it lying down? Or, who knows, is this all an elaborate plot to restore Obama’s standing with the public?
Predictably, Andrew Sullivan - that hysteric who, in Hitchens’ memorable turn of phrase, wants to have Barack Obama’s F-ing baby - is out there spinning madly for Obama. He depicts Obama’s new stance as “without calculation” (i.e., from a place of integrity, heart, realness, etc.). When we all know Obama has only done it now that it looks like Wright is a net liability to Obama’s electoral prospects.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 29, 2008 @ 4:23 pm - April 29, 2008
HotAir has video, and a pithy summation:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 29, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - April 29, 2008
MM liveblogging / partial transcript:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/29/obamas-big-press-conference/
Yeah, Obama’s thrown Wright fully overboard. So I’m wondering:
1) Why didn’t Obama know sooner? (Or, what did he know and when did he know it? haha)
2) What is Wright’s next move?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 29, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - April 29, 2008
I know. Whenever he’s put on the spot, he loses what supposedly made him more articulate than Bush. He starts stuttering and prattling on like an idiot. If Bush were hallucinating, he’d make a hell of a lot more sense than Snobama.
Talking about real issues throws him off his Future Hope for loose Change soundtrack.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 29, 2008 @ 4:45 pm - April 29, 2008
Man you guys have nailed this perfectly. The smooth articulate Obama is gone. The man who knew there were no WMD’s and that we would have so much trouble in Iraq….but was totally clueless about the racist, madman Reverend. But the media tonight is trying so hard to help out the Illinois Senator. They are approaching this as the moment when Barack can finally put the Reverend behind him. BS. They are so inversted in Obama’s success that they are grasping trying to help him end this embarassment. “Whew” they say, finally Obama has distanced himself from Wright. Please. Above someone said it…. someone please show us the “normal” Rev Wright that Obama fell in love with. I think we know the real Rev Wright, the man we don’t know is the real Barack Obama. How about a panel of Barack and Michelles closest friends …they can tell us what the Obama’s are like. What they believe.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 29, 2008 @ 10:30 pm - April 29, 2008
I’ve been reading a lot of people’s takes on Obama’s denunciation of Wright. Byron York gets to the heart pretty quickly. Obama turned on Wright this time, because:
It doesn’t change the fact, of course, that Obama DOES secretly agree with Wright or else he could not have physically kept himself in that pew for 20 long years of Sundays. But it obscures the fact. It lets Obama confuse people, or *distract* (haha) people from the real issue: Obama’s real views.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 10:19 am - April 30, 2008
And MM eviscerates both Wright and Obama - not to be missed. A small sample:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 11:08 am - April 30, 2008
One more thought. I’ve been getting a lot of schadenfreude from the Obama-Wright crackup. On a personal level, I wish Obama well. On a political level, I recognized him months ago as what is worst in American politics: a hard-Left, race-mongering, covertly anti-American socialist.
And one of my greatest sources of joy here (schadenfreude) would be poor, clueless, hysterical Andrew Sullivan. The whole thing is such a burn on him. Six weeks ago, when Obama gave a speech excusing Wright’s lunacies and saying Obama could no more disown Wright than his own white grandmother, Sullivan practically wet himself. Now Obama has said ‘Never mind… I disown Wright’. Oops. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - April 30, 2008
To call Sullivan some feminizing, homosexual slur for his hysterical twittering would be appropriate but I hate to imply that his lack of spine/self-respect/sense is typical of our gay fellow citizens.
He is a puss, though. On his best day/meds.
Comment by megapotamus — April 30, 2008 @ 12:32 pm - April 30, 2008
I think the most public self-humliation of Sullivan (other than the thing about his profile on an on-line hookup site) has to be Sullivan’s radio interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt when Sullivan was on his book tour for his book Conservative Soul.
http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=3b45fadb-a622-4959-a8b6-4352ad5abd5b
And here is Hugh Hewitt interviewing James Leileks who is impersonating Andrew Sullivan in the same style that Sullivan used in the interview
http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=4cfd6acb-23ec-4993-8c47-11d1c6787024
Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - April 30, 2008
Wright finally exposed what nine-tenths of us have suspected for months: Obama is lying through his teeth to secure the nomination.
It astounds me that Obama thinks people are so dumb as to believe that he had no idea what Wright was saying when Wright HAS been saying the same thing for the twenty years that Obama was clapping and cheering along with him.
But then again, Obama is a product of affirmative action, in which black people are never held accountable for any decision they make and in which the rules are changed to assure it. He HAS been surrounded with dumb white liberal Democrats his entire life and political career; why shouldn’t he be expected to act in the same arrogant and clueless fashion on the national stage?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - April 30, 2008