it is well-known that karl rove essentially "propped" john kerry's bid for the presidency up in 2004 by issuing several statements during the primaries noting kerry was a formidable candidate, had him worried, etc., in order to use his reverse psychology skills to lull us all into think kerry was our man. of course, kerry never had rove worried (aside: why the hell didn't anyone catch on to this? never take karl rove's word! he's like ben from LOST). in fact, rove had the best attack plan on kerry (flip-flop) and obviously, it worked.
the same rumblings have begun this campaign year--rove more or less offering advice to hillary clinton, deriding obama, etc. and why? well, if you're rove, and you're a brilliant campaign tactician, highly skilled in election espionage, hillary is the candidate you want to see make it through the primary. (makes the new york times' recent hillary endorsement even more interesting).
nothing, absolutely nothing, motivates the conservative base like mentioning the clinton name. obama, however, is a more nebulous and enigmatic threat. it is difficult to say anything negative about him that sticks. just look at the clinton campaign's mud-slinging attempts: he's a radical muslim? he owned rental properties in illinois? he was a drug-dealer?
straight from the celluloid snapshots of the movie "8 mile", obama has already released the most explosive information any opponent could hope to unleash. we know he struggled with a drug addiction--he wrote about it. in a book! the clinton campaign now looks like rabbit's opposing emcee at the end of the film--nothing to say, dumbfounded.
which brings me to this: ann coulter says she'd vote for hillary clinton over john mccain, and here's why:
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D
after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is
going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is,"
Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
what? is there anyone alive who thinks of hillary clinton as even remotely conservative? she is certainly not a fiscal conservative. (outside ron paul, i don't think there is one.) the health care plan she pushed during bill's white house years smacks of progressive/liberal ideals. giving licenses to illegal immigrants, etc.,--none of this is conservative canon. wanting to pull the US out of Iraq is certainly not part of the conservative agenda.
make no mistake, i haven't been a john mccain fan since he decided to rejoin the dark side and become another lemur for the bush administration. but within the framework of the current conservative agenda and canon, coulter's assessment makes zero sense.
the only explanation, as far as i am concerned, is that coulter is carrying rove's playbook: she thinks marshaling support against hillary would be a slam dunk. i'm afraid she's right, and i hope this time, the rest of the dems are smart enough to see it.
the same rumblings have begun this campaign year--rove more or less offering advice to hillary clinton, deriding obama, etc. and why? well, if you're rove, and you're a brilliant campaign tactician, highly skilled in election espionage, hillary is the candidate you want to see make it through the primary. (makes the new york times' recent hillary endorsement even more interesting).
nothing, absolutely nothing, motivates the conservative base like mentioning the clinton name. obama, however, is a more nebulous and enigmatic threat. it is difficult to say anything negative about him that sticks. just look at the clinton campaign's mud-slinging attempts: he's a radical muslim? he owned rental properties in illinois? he was a drug-dealer?
straight from the celluloid snapshots of the movie "8 mile", obama has already released the most explosive information any opponent could hope to unleash. we know he struggled with a drug addiction--he wrote about it. in a book! the clinton campaign now looks like rabbit's opposing emcee at the end of the film--nothing to say, dumbfounded.
which brings me to this: ann coulter says she'd vote for hillary clinton over john mccain, and here's why:
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D
after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is
going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is,"
Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
what? is there anyone alive who thinks of hillary clinton as even remotely conservative? she is certainly not a fiscal conservative. (outside ron paul, i don't think there is one.) the health care plan she pushed during bill's white house years smacks of progressive/liberal ideals. giving licenses to illegal immigrants, etc.,--none of this is conservative canon. wanting to pull the US out of Iraq is certainly not part of the conservative agenda.
make no mistake, i haven't been a john mccain fan since he decided to rejoin the dark side and become another lemur for the bush administration. but within the framework of the current conservative agenda and canon, coulter's assessment makes zero sense.
the only explanation, as far as i am concerned, is that coulter is carrying rove's playbook: she thinks marshaling support against hillary would be a slam dunk. i'm afraid she's right, and i hope this time, the rest of the dems are smart enough to see it.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment