Rove's Obsession
Last week, Rove on the Sunday talk shows, attacked Clinton while declining to disparage any other Democratic candidate, noting:
"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll," Rove said.
"It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3505777
Tactically, I believe this is a mistake. Rove believes Hillary is the weakest Democratic candidate, and that his attacks will make her ascendency more likely. His main point appears that people won't vote for someone they don't like-- as if this was a race for the high school student council. However, with Bush's approval rating in the low 30s, all that the Democrats need to do is to run against Bush's phantom in the general election, making 2008 a referendum on the stewardship of the Bush administration. I think Hillary is almost devoid of charisma, but I think people will vote against the Republicans no matter who is the Democratic candidate. The strongest attack on Hillary is not on whether or not she has high negatives but whether or not she is what she says she really is. She has gone through so many mutations and has also played rather loose with the truth at imes while surrounding herself with a inner ring of toadies I may justly wonder if a Clinton II administration will be much different that a Bush II administration. But I think this kind of an attack would work best in the primaries rather than in the general election.
If Rudy is the candidate, I think Hillary has a strong shot at becoming president, as Rudy's liberalism cancels out Hillary's liberalism and his negatives (at least when they become more fully explored) outweigh Hillary's negatives. These include Rudy's draft dodging, his civil rights records as major, his non-spin actions on 9/11, his serial marriages and family strife, and his embrace of an interventionist military.
"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll," Rove said.
"It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3505777
Tactically, I believe this is a mistake. Rove believes Hillary is the weakest Democratic candidate, and that his attacks will make her ascendency more likely. His main point appears that people won't vote for someone they don't like-- as if this was a race for the high school student council. However, with Bush's approval rating in the low 30s, all that the Democrats need to do is to run against Bush's phantom in the general election, making 2008 a referendum on the stewardship of the Bush administration. I think Hillary is almost devoid of charisma, but I think people will vote against the Republicans no matter who is the Democratic candidate. The strongest attack on Hillary is not on whether or not she has high negatives but whether or not she is what she says she really is. She has gone through so many mutations and has also played rather loose with the truth at imes while surrounding herself with a inner ring of toadies I may justly wonder if a Clinton II administration will be much different that a Bush II administration. But I think this kind of an attack would work best in the primaries rather than in the general election.
If Rudy is the candidate, I think Hillary has a strong shot at becoming president, as Rudy's liberalism cancels out Hillary's liberalism and his negatives (at least when they become more fully explored) outweigh Hillary's negatives. These include Rudy's draft dodging, his civil rights records as major, his non-spin actions on 9/11, his serial marriages and family strife, and his embrace of an interventionist military.
posted by My Mall & News at
5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home