Monday, February 27, 2006
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that President Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me."
The former first lady and potential presidential contender was reacting during a radio interview to a new book quoting Karl Rove as saying she will be the 2008 Democratic nominee for president,
"He spends more time thinking about my political future than I do," Clinton said, noting that Rove and other White House aides have met regularly with her possible opponents in November's 2006 Senate race.
This last bit strikes me as the least credible statement to come from Hillary since she claimed that her success in trading cattle futures came from reading The Wall Street Journal. Or at least since she said she didn't know where the Rose Law firm billing records were. It is challenging to choose the very least credible thing Hillary Rodham Clinton has ever said.
Be that as it may, isn't it interesting that Hillary made this claim at all? She is very shrewd, so we should not assume that it is the gaff that at first blush it appears to be. She is offering the fact that Bush's Brain "obsesses" over her as evidence that her candidacy poses the greatest threat to Republicans. She is saying, in effect, that she should be the nominee of the Democratic party because the GOP's Evil Genius worries the most about her.
Of course, Karl Rove is once again a step ahead. He knew that Hillary would make this claim if he let it slip that she was on his mind, hoping that the Democrats would be silly enough to fall for it and nominate her.
Silly Democrats. Will they never learn?
You may be right about Ms. Clinton's motives for making the comment, but I think -- I hope! -- the Dems won't fall for it.
I was convinced they couldn't nominate a worse candidate than Kerry (whom I voted for, nostrils firmly pinched shut). But Ms. Clinton would be even more disasterous.
Actually, I could see voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I only occasionally support Democrats, and never have for president, but notwithstanding my snarkiness I look upon Hillary with some favor. I have two reasons. First, I think she might be quite tough on the jihadis, and that's critical. Second, she is nothing but politically flexible. This implies that the opposition will be in a position to horsetrade with her. Overall, the results would be more to my liking, I think, than would be the case if most of the other Democrats were elected.
TH - ARRGH. You would vote for Hillary - the women who tried to bring you nationalized healthcare? Say it ain't so...
What's is especially amusing and vexing about all these references to the bogeyman Karl Rove is that he is the Advisor to a President (not the Party) who isn't running again.
"Karl Rove" has really become a rhetorical device used to energize the loony left. If Hillary can convince them (the loony left) that Rove thinks she is the Dem's best hope of victory, maybe they'll support her in the primaries like they did Kerry over Dean. Rove now defines electability for democrats.
Pretty funny really. Except that bit that you would think of viting for her. I'd sell the healthcare sector entirely if she was elected.
I agree that Hillary would have some drift to stay up in the polls (upon election, her first thought will be re-election), and would thus not be the doctrinaire leftist conservatives worry about. However, drift may be worse, as I noted here on 1/31. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/01/different-hillary-problem-probably.html
Note also, nearly all of Bill's scandals were actually Hillary's: blocking Vince Foster's office, Travelgate, Cattle futures, Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, and probably the FBI files.
The most unconvincing thing she said? "I'm sorry, I don't recall..."
I disagree, i think Hillary is dead on the nose on this one. Bush's approval rating is very low, even among Republican constituents. Karl Rove knows that HC is and always has been a source of source of great contention among Republicans and that for the most part, Republicans will do anything to keep her out of office. That usually translates into funds and support to the Republicans. She not only raises a lot of money for the Democrats but she raises i for the Republicans as well.
I'm with Tigerhawk, I can see myself voting for her.
No way. I can't believe she's even seriously considered. What political experience does she have that qualifies her for the presidency? She's been a (junior) Senator all of once, an office she got riding on her estranged husband's coat tails, and which was widely regarded at the time (!) as a grab at a springboard office for a presidential run. Come on, Senator from New York? She's not even from New York! She just wanted a "big" state that tended to vote Democratic, and an office opened up. And for some god-awful reason, New York voted her in.
She saw what power looked like from 1992-2000, and she wants it. Not a person I want in office.
As for her apparent popularity; this is just a sideways method for people to re-elect President William J. Clinton.
Remember. Tigerfish has already declared himself a Democrat.
After all the problems with the Clinton White House you would vote for the same.
Dick Morriss advised yesterday that there will be a concerted effort by the Hollywood crowd and the media to inculcate the notion that it is time for a woman to be President. This will reach a crescendo at the 2008 nomination time and peake at the 2008 election time.
I believe Morriss provides a realistic scenario which will get Clinton elected. With William at the UN and Hillary in the White House the new USSA and world socialism will be here to stay.
If Hollywood and the media spent half the effort in attacking those that would cut their heads off, or stone them to death, if they become powefull enough then the PR battle would be over.
Tigerhawk, I agree with your comments on HC. It's not that I think she would be a disasterous president. But I do think she would be a disasterous candidate -- her negatives are simply too high to overcome, in my opinion.
Cardinalpark, I agree that Rove has become a rhetorical device to energize the looney left. I believe Hillary plays a similar role vis-a-vis the looney right.
TH If by "politically flexible" you really mean morally expedient then I'm with you on Hillary. She plays up the role of protector on Womens' rights, yet every woman victimized by Bill's ham-handed advances is squashed by the Hillary-led charge of Bill enablers. Her personal choice to stay with and support her husband-and by necessity participate in the destruction of those he victimized-reflects a lack of personal conviction. How would her moral compass swing when the slavish pursuit of power encounters the need to take an unpopular yet principled position?