DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on December 02, 2007, 11:01:01 PM
-
Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race
By Karl Rove
Published: December 2 2007 22:00 | Last updated: December 2 2007 22:00
TO: Senator Barack Obama
FROM: Karl Rove
SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary
Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.
The good news is you have again got ?the buzz?. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.
First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.
Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.
Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: ?Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you?re hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee.? But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by.
Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill?s backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances.
Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you ? and she does.
Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers? licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.
Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.
Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more.
Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals ? namely you ? were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.
The writer is former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush and advised on his 2000 and 2004 presidential election campaigns
-
This begs this question.
Why does Karl Rove care?
-
<<This begs this question.
<<Why does Karl Rove care?>>
He cares because he's a long-time Clinton-hater and he represents a faction of long-time Clinton-haters.
But it seemed like pretty good advice nonetheless. What does he care if the Democrats rip one another to shreds? Probably figures Hillary doesn't need any advice on slashing and burning, so he better bring Obama up to speed so that the Democratic catfight is more protracted and more vicious. But that begs the question, why would Obama take advice from Rove?
-
Why does Karl Rove care?
Perhaps he misses the game.
I don't think he is involved in anyones campaign at this point, is he?
-
I thought Rove was retiring to spend more time with his family and maybe write a book of memoirs.
-
I thought Rove was retiring to spend more time with his family and maybe write a book of memoirs.
I haven't played baseball in decades but that doesn't mean that when spring rolls around i don't get the urge to hit the batting cages.
-
MT has a point.
Hillary is a target .
Justified or unjustified?
-
Way i look at it Rove is free to offer his advice and Obama is free to accept or reject it.
I doubt he solicited it, he should have his own advisors for that, even if to a seasoned eye they are making monumental blunders.
-
So he Kibbitzes like a spectator of a chess game ?
He knows the strategems so he shares them?
Or is this sort of thing good for his book deals?
-
So he Kibbitzes like a spectator of a chess game ?
He knows the strategems so he shares them?
Probably.
Maybe like a color man (usually a former player or coach) on a football broadcast.
-
Let's just assume that Rove is just as devious as ever. He thinks that Obama can be beaten more easily than Hillary.
Rove has never been anything other than a devious, scheming slimeball.
To assume that he has changed, would be illogical.
There is also the possibility that he was paid to write this.
-
Always the progenitor of conspiracy theories, XO?
-
There is also the possibility that he was paid to write this.
I would hope so.
-
Rove has been involved in a variety of conspiracies previously. Why would anyone not admit to the possibility that this is also part of some Rovian conspiracy or dirty trick?
Rove does not want there to be a President Obama. Of this I am sure.
-
Nobody except Rove and maybe some of his intimates is likely to know why he really wrote it but here is a plausible explanation. He's not thrilled with Obama but he positively loathes Hillary. He would really love to see Hillary humiliated as for example by the Party selecting Obama as its candidate. But he's really irritated by what he sees as the naivete, inexperience and/or stupidity of Obama, so he figures, here are some pointers for the kid, it'd be nice to see him rub Hillary's nose in the dirt but he doesn't seem to have a clue.
He's just indulging himself or venting. By publicly pointing out Hillary's vulnerabilities, he's lashing out at her. By telling Obama what to do, for free, he's influencing the outcome of a game at which he's otherwise just a spectator. Not unlike some armchair quarterback yelling at the screen on a Sunday afternoon, only a lot smoother and demonstrating to the world that he's still a master of the game even if no longer a player. There's also an element of contempt for Obama - - you poor helpless sap, you're so far behind the game that even though I'm against everything you stand for, I'm gonna help you because I feel sorry for you.
Although I could be wrong, and there might really be a Machiavellian motive to all this, my gut feeling is that it's not a plot. He probably did it for fun, with the motivation as I postulated.
-
Rove has been involved in a variety of conspiracies previously. Why would anyone not admit to the possibility that this is also part of some Rovian conspiracy or dirty trick?
Rove does not want there to be a President Obama. Of this I am sure.
Why not?
Wouldn' that ventuality be good for the Rovin career?
-
Wouldn' that ventuality be good for the Rovin career?
Odds are a Clinton presidency would be better for his career.
She is more polarizing and easier to exploit.
-
Wouldn' that ventuality be good for the Rovin career?
No, it would not. Rove wants the GOP to run the country. Obama is a Democrat, and a bit of a Liberal.
Obama would surely not be as warlike as Juniorbush, and Halliburton would find it harder to commit their present thievery. Taxes for the superrich are sure to go up, and entitlements would not be slashed. Rove would never be hired by any Republican.
Rove's career would surely consist of writing his memoirs, trying to convince the world that he is not a despicable scumbag.
-
<<Rove's career would surely consist of writing his memoirs, trying to convince the world that he is not a despicable scumbag.>>
IMHO, Rove lives in his own world, where the possibility of his being a miserable scumbag would not even cross his mind. I think you have him confused with somebody who interacts with the real world and actually gives a damn about it.
<<Obama is a Democrat, and a bit of a Liberal.>>
Well said. Particularly "a bit of." IMHO, that is one tiny teensy little bit. Invisible to the naked eye.
<<Obama would surely not be as warlike as Juniorbush>>
Obama probably wouldn't start an unnecessary war, as Bush did, but OTOH, he might not stop an unnecessary war that a Republican predecessor had started. I'm not sure about that. Also, I'm just not sure where Rove stands on the Iraq war anyway - - is he a true believer or was he dragged along in its wake by herd instinct?
-
Wouldn' that ventuality be good for the Rovin career?
No, it would not. Rove wants the GOP to run the country. Obama is a Democrat, and a bit of a Liberal.
Obama would surely not be as warlike as Juniorbush, and Halliburton would find it harder to commit their present thievery. Taxes for the superrich are sure to go up, and entitlements would not be slashed. Rove would never be hired by any Republican.
Rove's career would surely consist of writing his memoirs, trying to convince the world that he is not a despicable scumbag.
You don't understand what makes Ann Colter and Rush Limbaugh wealthy .
Maybe Rove too.
Well people don't go to Doctors ,people happy with the political situation don't go to political fixers or support angry commentators.
A Clinton presidency would make the demand for Rove services and Limbaugh comments much greater than a McCain or Guliani presidency.