Ouch!

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.

And:

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?