Thursday, January 10, 2008


I was reading this great bit in the WSJ titled, very simply, "Why Hillary Won." I found myself more and more in agreement with the author as he touched on the inaccuracy of polls, the demographic of those who vote for Clinton vs. those who vote for Obama, and a few of the flaws with Obama and the strengths of Clinton (it's no secret I'm a Clinton supporter and of course who doesn't like seeing their viewpoint validated). An interesting point made about Obama's experience:

Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.


Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too.
Continuing, the author laid out very simply the road ahead for the nomination. Then I got to the end of the article, and I saw the following:

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Oof. Do I feel played. Competing gut reactions: My Clinton-loving instincts vs. the nausea induced by Karl Rove. So what's the agenda? Why did Karl ROVE, of all people, write this?


  1. Karl Rove is a smart guy, and I think his analysis is spot on. There is the possibility of a hidden agenda, of course, which is that the GOP might consider Hillary an easier target to run against than Obama. I don't think that's a big issue in this case, since Rove really wanted Hillary to win, he would do so in a much more under-handed fashion, than an op-ed in the WSJ.

    In any case, I am not so much of a Clinton supporter as I am an Obama opposer. I think his policies are vapid, ill-thought out, and Obama repeats way too many Republican talking points while campaigning to make me comfortable. While John Edwards would be far and away my favorite, I don't think he has a chance of winning, so I'm throwing my weight behind Clinton.

  2. i too have problems with some of obama's policies, and he has ducked many big issues. in fact, i remember reading a comparison of candidates and the final line on obama was "can you name one important policy thing obama has done?" and i couldn't.

    i think not too many people have looked beyond obama's speeches to see what he might really be about. if/when they do, they might be surprised about some of his experience and positions.

    now, as to karl rove. sure, a first thought is this is a tactic to get people to support clinton, who might be more beatable. but if i was a republican, i'd be more afraid that obama is preaching something more centrist, something that may sound a bit republican but pushes everyone to the center, to compromise. perhaps lots of republicans might vote for obama? maybe rove is worried about the ideological power of a "uniter" like obama?

    i dunno.

  3. i was thinking about this a bit more, and i think that rove actually just thinks that clinton would be a better president than obama. rove is supposed to be retired, right? he's not working on any specific campaign, or pushing some hidden agenda.

    simple as that.

    the scary part (and probably why i had that initial reaction) is that i agree with karl rove on what's best for this country!

  4. hi - i just discovered your blog - it's excellent! have a nice weekend :)