Whose mind is Karl going to change about anyone these days? The folks who already drank the Kool-Aid have been convinced long ago. So who is left for him to influence and convince that they should have a negative opinion of anyone?

I absolutely agree. anyone who worries what the joker has to say...just absurd

Rove is just another name for a pathetic loser; sure, he brought victory to Bush in 2000 and 2004, but just wait, all those GOPers are taking right-wing theocratic positions and they are making a right-turn which will haunt them! Read: Mitt Romney! FLIP-FLOP S.O.B.

"Really, now. Maybe some of these explanations are right. But here's a simpler explanation. Maybe Rove is just playing to his audience"

Yup. And he couldn't find a better helper than pickler.

pickler alert:

"and a senior Clinton adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is some concern in the campaign that Rove's remarks are more likely to raise those negatives."

A senior Clinton advisor is gonna tell secrets to pickler. Doubt it. And "Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist who is not working for any candidate" is also quoted in several places on obama's web site. A quick google turns up backus praising obama while trashing Clinton routinely. Just the type of person pickler would go to for a quote on Hillary. And then to top it off pickler quotes sarah taylor! The former rove deputy and one-time white house political director. The young miss taylor certainly proved herself at the congressional hearings. That article is a classic pickler.

I'd say that any Hillary adviser that might be whispering this is an idiot.

Rove is a multi-tasker though, he's never just playing to an audience. Does Rove think that making the "Hillary's negatives are too high" argument himself will polarize Dems who had been trying to make it against Hillary's supporters? Of course! He sits around thinking about this kind of crap all day and all night.

I dunno, as they say no point wrestling with a pig.
Hillary is thrilled lowering herself to his level. I think she's blowing political capital on a hasbeen who ought to be ignored, left to rot on the
dungheap of history.

Or, who's the bigger fool, the fool or the person arguing with the fool.

Also, I've looked over Obama's whole website, didn't find any quotes from Jenny Backus. A google search did reveal to me, however, that when Obama announced for Pres and that story came out shortly thereafter that he had attended a "Madrassa", Jenny Backus corrected Republican Amy Holmes' assertion that the story had originated in the Clinton campaign. So I'm not sure what you're talking about with that...

Be aware that hadenough may well be a group account paid to post pro-Hillary comments.

It's sad, but hadenough seems to start quite a few rumors of the whisper campaign variety.

I've re-read that quoted paragraph a couple of times now. And nothing he says leads me to draw the same conclusion you did. He doesn't draw any conclusions about her battle with Rove, other than that partisans on both sides may be nostalgic by this "pseduo-battle".

The Obama camp says her battle with Rove proves she's polarizing and would be less able to unite people than Obama is.

Very little in a campaign is said or done without a purpose. I suspect this is part of a plan. This isn't a knock on Hillary because it's pretty obvious what the other Dem candidates are doing politically.

It wasn't long ago that Obama was calling Hillary "Bush-Cheney Lite". By picking a fight with Rove (and by extesion Bush/Cheney), the Hillary Camp makes Obama's statement seem silly. If Obama and Edwards go after the lobbyist angle to tie her into "the status quo", the fight with Rove will help dampen that argument.

The other effect this has is that it will probably lead to increased fundraising. "Rove is coming after us and we need your help."

Karl Rove tries to cheer up the base with a little Clinton-bashing and this is news?

BTW, it is two years ago this month that I heard Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio both call former President Bill Clinton a rapist in the same week.

Limbaugh and Hannity called Bill Clinton a rapist in 2005 and it wasn't even an election year. Imagine what they are gearing up for next year if Hillary runs?

You lose your argument when you start calling people names instead of refuting facts. So there are articles quoting her on the website, I'll give you that, but that's all I can give you. I thought you meant direct quotes from her. But anyways, the point stands - she has tried to stop false rumors being spread about Clinton, whereas if she were the "obamaevanglist (sic)" you childishly refer to her as, she would have just piled on. I know perfectly well that Nedra Pickler is a GOP mole and why the AP has her covering the Dem. primary contest. I don't care what she says about Rove one way or the other, I'm just saying that Rove and the GOP want to run against Hillary.

I disagree, because it would be a specific contention of its own for ANY of the Dem candidates to criticize Clinton for arguing with Rove, and give that as an example of why she shouldn't be president. Its completely false, laughable on its face.

GQMartinez:

I understand implication and Greg didn't argue by implication. He attributed an explicit statement to Obama's camp (without direct quotes). According to Greg:

The Obama camp says her battle with Rove proves she's polarizing and would be less able to unite people than Obama is.

It's go time!!! Yowza!
No seriously, how can anyone take Rove's 'the math'(tm) seriously. I think Karl's talking to the press corps more than to the last 25% (the angry white males who watch fox news). The press still seems to lend him a lot of cred. I don't understand why, frankly. One thing is for sure though, he's always been a master at spinning the press corps - and a lot of it consists in giving the journos prepackaged 'narratives' with easily identifiable opposites. I think he's gonna be distilling his nefarious 'wisdom' throughout the campaign, and the press will eat it like it's freaking white truffle...

[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

That's it. It's very simple. Rove's specialty is dirty politics. Lee Atwood would be ashamed of Rove's paltry actions so far against Clinton. Frankly, I'll bet Hillary is appalled at the complete lack of skill she's seeing from Karl now. He's lost his touch folks. We should be seeing brilliantly sneaky plays like mailing porn to Romney and having it come from Hillary's campaign headquarters, so the world can gasp in horror at the depravity of the Clintons.

Instead, what do we get? Puerile, street-crime political attacks? Oh, please. Hillary's overcome by the paucity of intelligence in these gnat-attacks.

Hillary Clinton has been vetted. Over the course of years. There's nothing they have on her that they haven't already used.

All they have is her husband. So, Rudy's complaint to a questioner today, who asked why we should vote for him, if his own kids won't vote for him, to which Rudy replied: You "leave my family alone and I'll leave yours alone," looks VERY SAD.

How's that gonna work in the general, Rudy, when you start attacking Bill Clinton?

No question, Karl Rove is looking quite pathetic attacking Hillary Clinton just as he resigns in fear of being accountable for his actions in the Bush administration.

And, Rush Limbaugh, he of the "anal cyst" deferment from Vietnam, and the Oxycontin addiction problem, looks mighty dumb complaining about how "liberals" have been deceived by Democrats in the 8 months Dems have had Congress/Senate control, too. I mean, we've been "abused" for 8 months by deceit? What does that say about Republicans, who were deceived for TWELVE YEARS?

They're ludicrous. They deserve nothing but contempt.

"We have been hobbled by partisanship in the extreme, of which Rove frankly is the master architect. We don't need to re-enact that for another election cycle, and if we do it will portend another four years of scorched Earth politics." - David Axelrod

I think David Axelrod hits the nail on the head in the quote above.

Hillary represents the divisive politics of the past with her famous "right-wing conspiracy" retorts to everything that is wrong in Washington.

Obama, on the other hand, is forging a new type of "unite and govern" type of politics, in which various interests are all given a seat at the table so that everyone has a stake in the policy that is ultimately pursued.

Consider the context. Rove was on the Limbaugh show. Raw meat for the dittoheads. Does anyone listen to Limbaugh who doesn't agree with him?

I recommend that you visit her web site if you want to know what issues she's addressing. She has been giving policy speeches all over the place. The last was about protecting seniors.

I'm not saying she doesn't want this tussle covered -- I think she does. In fact, I think she's just chomping at the bit to take on the entire Bush adminstration at any opening whatsoever.

But if you are actually interested in what she's actively talking about on the stump, check out her website.

All I know for sure is that underestimating Karl Rove is a mistake. It sure looks like he's playing Hillary like a fiddle, rallying her troops to defend her and watching every move her machine makes... responses, methods, timing, vocabulary.... lots of information.

Freespeak says "She has been giving policy speeches all over the place. " Actually, she has been giving policy speeches that are all over the place. Hillary has taken many sides on many issues. Read her floor speech before the Iraq vote. She is so cautious to touch every base and qualify any commitment, she ends up saying very little.

This is where the Democratic Party partisans go elitist: we are above this drivel because we are so much better on the issues.

The Rethugs -- since their policies are so much worse and often call for people to vote against their self interests -- embrace this drivel and win elections they shouldn't. Some of it is science based and they use that to the fullest.

We need to find responsible ways to tap into the touchy feely side of the electorate. I'm about ready to argue for an ad that says this is your brain on GOP koolaid.

For example, most of the Republican faithful hate Hillary. Rove is currently in something approaching disgrace with even many ReThugs -- he lost them an election and didn't see it coming. The Rethugs are power freaks and like to feel invincible.
It is a psychological fact that one way to make yourself better liked is to criticize someone that the group you are trying to appeal to dislikes. So Rove instinctively thinks he can gain ground by bashing Hillary.

This is precisely the type of reaction that Rove is trying to touch off.

Let's not look at her stance on issues and how much better she is than any 'Publican party member -- let's debate how divisive she is.

Rove played this game in the late Clinton years and thinks he can get us to play it again. To the extent that Obama implied that's getting old that was a good put down of Rove. To the extent that he implied Hillary defending herself is adding to the problem Obama is himself is misguided and divisive himself.

Why doesn't anyone put this guy where he belongs with all the really very dirty tricksters.That's all he is.
He has had all the scared/willing media to work with though and uses that to paint.
He and the media have made everyone "look" like they do something when the facts are opposite.
He has put a face on his deception and fraud of smarts and brains along with some of the other totally unqualified loot counters.
And they continue with complete media assistance.
Don't forget they have all the resources.
But he is hit and miss at best.Almost all miss.
They throw up many many ugly dark colored balloons all the time to find which one creates the most productive distraction and disorienting attention.
The only way this whole game has gone on is with 30+ years planning and an entire media not only bought but scared as well.
This whole event has been run like a pr experiment only the bad mutant results are not reported, only added to the steaming rot and thrown in the sewer only to show up later in another version.
Don't ever forget kenronlay is a gang mamber in highest standing.Same club.Same parties.Same companies.Same email addresses.Same gang!
His ethics are the model for these guys.
Hey, it's all about the bottom line and these guys have been pulling off history's biggest con.
Right in front of us.
Holding everyone at the gunpoint of fear while they steal.And roveroolala can make it ugly fast.He has the media trained to get out the darkest distractions instantly.
And they are diverting all future revenue directly into their big hole.
Roveroolala is a deception-art gofer.
Cut him off from the media.
Save us all some headaches and motion sickness.
It's already bad enough but what if we all end up working for him?

I started out making the point that the reporter was a hack. The concern from some went straight to obama. Not the fact the reporter was a hack. Not the fact that a possible dem nom was being trashed by said hack. No. The big concern for some was where is the obama link. In no way did my original post have any more to with obama then typing in his name. What's the big concern for some: obama.

An ap reporter assigned to cover the dem primaries types up an analyses of possible dem candidate Hillary that is crap. What's the big problem some have: obama.

You wanna help your guy: Stop it.

honestly, the obama camp hasn't objected to this characterization of it...believe me, they're happy for us to take this meaning from what they're saying

Why that's simply frightfully horrid of you, Greg, to think that Obama's campaign staff would try to take advantage of a damsel in distress. LOL!

Looks to me like it's win-win for Hillary to be attacked by the only propaganda machine with a capability equal to her own.

Hard for me to see Obama benefiting in any way no matter how much his campaign might wish it were otherwise.

Joe Lieberman's cries of divisiveness by all his enemies don't seem overly effective these days.

Best, Terry

Hillary is a divisive figure because she and her husband were smeared with a huge number of bogus scandals.

Somehow the beguiled overlook Hillary's actual corruption and rightwing credentials when cataloging the fanciful hogwash.

How's that Whitewater development doing these days you think? Has the crooked broker that performed a miracle for Hillary on her first day of cattle futures trading got his license back?

BTW how's Hillary's war in Iraq going? Are you sure it wasn't a blunder to vote for it? How about awarding Alberto Gonzales some wonderful new tools to tear up the Constitution?

Looks to me like Hillary is far more bedeviled by a Vast Leftwing Conspiracy that doesn't cotton much to whatever your whacko Vince Foster theories are.

Best, Terry

I'd say that any Hillary adviser that might be whispering this is an idiot.

Folks in HillaryLand just don't leak, unless it is a strategically authorized leak. Period. See for yourself:

Hillary Control
The women of “Hillaryland” have constructed a carefully managed, always on-message, leakproof campaign. But is this a good thing?
By Michelle Cottle

If that was not an authorized leak, that adviser is not only an idiot, but is also an idiot without a job right about now.

"Your past posts follow similar veins of attack, attack, attack with similar, if not more blatant, styles."

Good gravy! Are you another stalker?

I was making the point the consultant had done nothing but praise obama and attack Hillary. You think pickler does not know that? Why would the reporter ask that consultant what effect rove attacking Hillary would have on Hillary. Does the reporter think we will get some decent nonbiased answers from her? That's not how pickler thinks. backus can't open her mouth without attacking Hillary. pickler knows this. This is pickler doing "analysis." If pickler had decided to use an Edwards supporter to attack Hillary I would have mentioned that. But she didn't. pickler used an obama supporter. Now if you think someone pointing that out is attacking obama please see my second comment.

Greg's interpretation seems quite accurate to me. It feels a little like some posters are just disingenuously picking this bone as yet another way to cheer lead O-Bomb-A on.

Is that because hadenough seems to be too smart, sophisticated and politically hip to be one person?

Everyone, especially the Democratic candidates, should avoid underestimating Karl Rove.

As he re-acquaints himself with life as a private citizen, Rove is enjoying himself by goading the Democratic candidates into attacking each other about things HE says about them. This makes them all look small and incapable of doing the one thing that the Republicans and NeoCons fear the most moving into the 2008 election: showing real leadership. A genuine display of leadership from the Dem side would result in a Democratic landslide and real carnage for the Republican/NeoCon crowd. By tarnishing all the Democratic candidates, Karl helps keep the total number of Democratic votes down.

Rove knows that the Republicans and NeoCons can't win this election on the merits. It's going to be all about minimizing the damage. More people who might vote Dem but won't come out because they think there's no difference between the parties means fewer Democratic voters. Rove knows this math inside out, and it's hard to believe that he's not using it here.

The smart response to everything Rove says should be to politely say that we aren't trying to get Karl Rove's vote and therefore won't comment on his attempts to turn the candidates against each other. Democrats spend way too much time already trying to get elected by Republicans, and getting sucked in to discussing any issue Rove brings up is just not smart.

"All of them are vehemently pro-Hillary, anti-every other candidate, Rep or Dem."

My original comment here is about a hack reporter who has spent years trashing dems. How is that pro-Hillary and anti-every other candidate? And my next 2 comments continue to focus on the hack reporter. One includes a mention that obamaists knee-jerk reaction to seeing these letters 'o b a m a' is to attack. How is that pro-Hillary and anti-every other candidate?

I've asked you twice before, Terry, but you have refused to answer the question:

If Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, will you vote for Hillary

I have answered numerous times.

I won't vote for Hillary.

I won't vote for any hawk.

I won't vote Republican, heavy or lite.

I won't vote for Hillary if David Duke is the Republican nominee.

Now instead of throwing the hate word around, would you like to make any sort of case why anyone who gives a damn about the Democratic Party and the party and the planet should vote for Hillary.

You are most unlikely to convince me but maybe you can convince others or even see the errors of your ways.

Best, Terry

Braintree, see my response to your slightly varied post upthread.

Well, you must know by now that if you refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee, that's one more vote FOR the Republican nominee.

I don't know who you think you're sending a message to with your vow not to vote for Senator Clinton even if she becomes the Democratic Party's nominee, but Sam Goldwyn once said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."

By not voting at all or voting for a third-party candidate (same as not voting at all), you only help the political party you LEAST want to win.

I will support whoever among the Democratic candidates becomes the nominee. Yes, they all have strong points and weak points but on balance they are a very good group of candidates.

You might do more good by telling everyone who you like and why you support that person, instead of this steady stream of nonsense that you write against Hillary. You are only spouting tired slurs we have heard coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We've heard them all, and they are not true. Unless, of course, you think either Rush or Sean sticks to facts and the truth.

P.S. I am not telling anyone to vote for anyone. My point here on the TPM board has been to refute some of the wild and false allegations made about the current Democratic front-runner. Bashing the Democratic front-runner serves the Republicans well, but it will not help us win back the White House in 2008. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will happily support and vote for him. And that goes for all the other Democratic candidates.

Best, Poetry

Your response is simply amazing.

I guess you would also blame an increase in street crime on the victims of those crimes.

If you think the rightwingers' goal of taking complete control of this country is a thing of the past, you are naive. The reason they went after the Clintons had nothing to do with whatever sins the Clintons may have committed, and the proof of that is the rightwingers' utter and complete silence regarding the crimes the Bushites and their enablers have committed.

The rightwingers went after the Clintons because the Clintons were in their way. The rightwingers' goal was and IS to control all the branches of government so they can increase their personal power and wealth. They had to destroy the Clintons to have any chance of achieving that goal.

There is still a rightwing conspiracy to take over the levers of power in America and if you don't understand and acknowledge that, it is unlikely anyone can have a serious discussion with you.

Uh, er, dchungu, the usual concept of 'pole' requires another 'pole', whether that refers to North Pole vs South Pole, or poles in magnetics and batteries. ,

Er,er, DonnaG... I guess you've never heard of the 'concept' of 'magnetic monopole'...LOL.

DCS, NYC
Associate Prof of Physics in Radiology
Chief, Laboratory for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Research

If Hillary wants to be a 'magnetic monopole', she would have to stop defining herself vis a vis her new 'vast rightwing conspirers'. LOL

That's a very peculiar response.

I don't get ANY of my information from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, but you sound as if you do.

P.S. No one on this planet is "pure," so we shouldn't waste our time hoping for some perfect candidate. If you read enough history and news, you will discover that even the best of our presidents were imperfect.

A person who is on the receiving end of a smear campaign is not "a part of that divisive politics" so much as they are the victims of that smear campaign.

You also seem to resent your perception that "Hillary is eager to re-engergize that sort of 'grand epic' conflict....new cabal of vast rightwing conspirers..." yadda, yadda, yadda. as if it were some sort of dodge. Well, you could be right about her dodging issues but after "Al Gore says he invented the internet" and the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" if there's one thing you can count on in this election it's the inevitable reality that the Republicans are going to come a-smearing. Not only is it their signature M.O., they really have nothing else to run on. Since the snooze media were the GOPs happy enablers before, it's only common sense to start harping on this unpleasant reality in advance to ensure the charges will stick when the pious slimeballs are called on it later. In other words: It's aboslutely 100% vital that we deligitimize this shit, you know?

The question you need to answer is: How do we delegitimize this shit w/o reminding people of the past?

I detect a little desperate projection here, dear.