I see on Drudge tonight that Bush and his cronies have already started in on Hillary. They must have decided she has a real chance of being successful in winning the primary, and even the presidency. So, they have to start early to disparage and discredit her. That is one of the things I hate about Rove. He is a brutal, evil person who has no conscience and was able to escape prosecution for the CIA mess because the president needs him to hold his hand and make decisions for him. I wish people were discerning enough to see through this but many will fall prey to the innuendos and even direct accusations. They are even making comments about her “health problems” now. It is depressing and sad to see how the people we entrust to have our best interests at heart are so hollow. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t have a corner on this market. Do you ever wish we could have a clean campaign for president or do you view all this garbage as entertainment or even “fair play”?
I’m not sure how we could have a clean campaign given the kinds of people who want the job.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
British politician (1874 - 1965)
Mudslinging and dirty politics goes back to the founding of our country. It’s the gullibility of the electorate that is the problem. Getting involved and supporting your choice is the best solution, even if you feel insignificant and ineffective it does work.
I would have thought they want Hilary to run…she’s quite polarizing.
Well, yeah. But they don’t want her to win.
More precisely, they’d like her to run carrying the maximum baggage they can heap on her.
What do the polls say? I was going to the Doctors on the 14th (a good 2 hour drive) and could only get talk radio through the one section of country. That day they claimed that the polls showed that Hillary clearly would not win. I wondered at the time of the accuracy, but have seen no articles either way.
There was a short piece in my monthly newsletter I receive from my county’s Democratic party. It was expressing the concern that Hillary could easily win the Democratic nomination but would have little chance of winning the presidential election. This was based on the premise that she could garner very little support from political right. I agree with the article, the only way a Democrat will see the White House will be if Hillary does not run. I am left wondering why the Republicans would be worrying about her if her own party does not think she can win the election.
If Hillary is halfway intelligent (and I think we can agree on at least that), then she’ll continue playing this will-she-or-won’t-she game for the next year or so, acting as a lightning rod, distracting the hardcore rightwingers, while the rest of the party gets itself organized and in gear. There’s no way she can win a national election, and I think she knows this. But she’s proved to be such a magnet for Republican attention that she’d be better off taking advantage of that for the good of the party than actually running.
It’s a trial balloon, to see if they can energize the far right to focus on a target. She’s a pretty attractive target because, as someone else said, she’s polarizing. They need something that will permit them to wink-wink-nudge-nudge their core voters (the ones who turned up in droves to “vote down” gay marriage, even though that wasn’t an issue in the election) into getting behind whatever candidate they put forward, and not just in the next presidential election, but in the off-year election too.
Rove is a master strategist and it is utter foolishness to think he is somehow misplaying his hand here. If the country is truly as divided down the middle as it has seemed for the past few years, then whichever side can get even a handful more people out to vote (or to focus on something other than, say, Iraq and the economy) wins. The Democrats have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of issuing a rallying cry and pulling their side together; Rove is masterful at doing it for the Republicans. I suspect his message will begin to morph as time goes on, but he’s laying the groundwork for something important.
She rather deftly gave Karl Rove a dose of his own medicine
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
It would certainly be a divisive election, but I don’t see why Hillary can’t win.
Why does Rove even care? Are we presuming that he will be working for the 2008 Republican nominee?
Here’s a poll on the subject. Gallup says that 51% of their respondents would not vote for her – IMHO, a hugely negative number. That’s not “would rather vote for her opponent”, or “probably won’t vote for her”.
Because it isn’t just Republicans, there’s a large number of Democrats that dislike her. Although, I still don’t understand why she’s so universally loathed, other than she refused to take the traditional role of reading to little kids and staying unobtrusive. The role of women in this country has changed hugely over the past 50 years, so why we continue to insist our first ladies fit the 1950 housewife persona is beyond me.
Rove will be working for the 2064 Republican nominee if he doesn’t have an unfortunate encounter with sunlight or garlic.
The main problem cited about Hillary recently is that polls show a slight majority (I htinkn 51%) who say they definitely would not vote for her. But I’ve never heard of this type of poll before (ie, wrt other candidates), and who’s to say if it’s static. There is no doubt that she is the current frontrunner (to the extent there is one), but I also find it interesting that Drudge is being cited by the OP in order to justify a claim that Bush “and his cronies” are somehow unfairly targetting Hillary. Isn’t Drudge just a right-wing shill? And, frankly, if I hear one more OP about how the mean old Republicans are playing dirty politics, I think I’ll puke. If you can’t stand the heat, baby, get out of the kitchen. Politics isn’t for boyscouts (or girlscouts, in this case). It never was, it isn’t now, and it never will be. If you’ve got substantive charges of illegal activity, let’s hear about it. Otherwise, quite yer bitchin’.
My guess is that Hillary will run if the Democrats take control of at least one House of Congress later this year. Would she, of all people, really want to be prez when both Houses are controlled by Republicans? Talk about your “vast, right-wing conspiracy”!!
Hillary could win if the Republicans were stupid enough to nominate someone like Condi Rice, but if they nominate Giulliani or McCain, I’d give her about a 25% chance of winning at best. Condi as a VP candidate would be a huge plus, but she just ain’t presidential yet. McCain/Rice would be next to impossible to beat.
Actually, John, the article I cited gives the name of the book in which Karl Rove predicts Hillary to be the candidate in '08. The quote from him isn’t complimentary, but I’d hardly call it “dirty politics,” just Rove being his spin doctor self.
I loathe her because she kisses conservative ass on issues, including gay marriage, indecency, video games, etc. I also loathe Joe Lieberman, who does the same thing (only more so).
In my experience, the Democrats who don’t like Hillary think she’s too much “Republican lite” and not enough “True populist Democrat” to support her. The notion that the Clintons are these wild-eyed radical lefties is one that comes from the conservative echo chamber, and has as little basis in reality as the rest of the stuff that bounces around therein.
“Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had.”