What’s Up with Rove and Clinton?
21 August 2007 1:25 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
| VIDEO: Debate – Rove Targets Clinton |
Edwards can’t catch a “free media” headline, at least not a positive
one. So hit him with his
poll numbers (video). Great piece on the “global war on terror”
in Foreign Affairs. See the press yawn. Poverty? Ewww!
Clinton gobbled up the early press, but another storyline took hold pretty
quickly.
In the derby for “free media” exposure, Barack Obama overtook
fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, who led in the first three months of the
year, the report found.Media Coverage of the Campaign
Rises, War Coverage Falls, During the Second Quarter of 2007
There seems to be something developing here that I can’t quite pin down so
bear with me. It sure smells of something orchestrated, though I’m not hinting
at anything organized. That is unless you take into consideration that
what one part of the corporate hack pack picks up the other part parrots.
It started with the media double standard, none of it the Obama team’s fault
but it’s still there and it matters. You know, Obama talks about rising
above politics then releases a smear memo about Hillary
Clinton (D-Punjab), while simultaneously going after the
Big Dog. The campaign apologized and Obama said he had nothing to do with
either, but you can just imagine what negative press Clinton would receive if
she let something like that fly. Same with the debate issue. Oh, and don’t forget to take note of these
headline treatments by the media. Same goes for Obama calling Clinton “Bush-Cheney
lite.” If the press was looking for a fight those were indeed fighting
words. Nothing, at least not much. Flip flopping on campaign strategy evidently
doesn’t meet the media story grade either (lucky for Axelrod).
But Clinton’s cleavage is important.
Now comes the “electability” question for Clinton, which the corporate
hack pack from journalist to cable TV is now pimping, compliments of Karl Rove.
It comes complete with analysis from talking heads that Rove really wants Clinton
to win, which is why he’s targeting her. Back up story: the Republicans are
covering their fear of Obama (because, remember, Edwards doesn’t exist to them).
However, since everyone is now parroting Rove’s Is she electable? storyline,
with a side of look at Clinton’s negatives (Rove says she’s “fatally flawed”), I’d say Karl’s job is,
as he would say, mission accomplished. Compliments of Karl and some
nervous nellie Dems, people are now openly questioning Clinton’s electability
and worrying about her negatives, which is anything but good news for Clinton. Even in leaving the White House Karl Rove
got the corporate hack pack to do his bidding. So can we please dispense with
the Republicans really want to run against Clinton nonsense? Of course
not.
Even when Clinton closed the circle in Sunday’s debate there was a collective
silence in the media, without a word of Clinton’s
own push back about her supposed deadly negatives and electability.
CLINTON: I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for
longer than anybody else up here. I’ve taken them on and we’ve beaten them.
… .. And you know, the idea that you’re going to escape the Republican
attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they’re through with
you, I think, is just missing what’s been going on in American politics for
the last 20 years.
Seen any coverage at all about what happened in the 1990s and how the wingnut
juggernaut attacked Clinton and her husband his entire presidency all the way
to impeachment, starting with the ‘92 campaign, which continues on Fox “News”
today, compliments of Sean Hannity and Dick let me suck your toes Morris?
Seen any coverage about what negative
publicity for 20 years can do to a person, especially a woman who not only
is the first First Lady senator, but the most investigated woman on the political landscape who just happens to be the first viable female candidate
to run for the presidency in American history? How would Mr. Obama do after
20 years of all those swiftboating
general election Republican
operatives teeing
off on that middle name nonsense, or the madrassa slur started by Fox?
There’s his minister, but also the nasty nugget
about Malcolm X that was floated by Politico.com’s Mike Allen. Can Obama
fight back and win against wingnut thugs? Look at what the noise of the corporate
hack pack, plus Fox and O’Reilly have done to Edwards over a ridiculous haircut.
What would 20 years of that crap, plus the latest financial nonsense look like?
Tune in to Fox “News” because they’re going at Edwards yet again.
These guys destroyed Kerry and they did it in three months.
Seen any coverage about Ken Starr targeting the Clinton’s with our tax dollars
then releasing a pornographic report on the Internet?
Clinton’s not only standing, but she’s a senator from the great state of New
York, not to mention running for president. She beat them all. Rove knows it
and is worried, because he’s on a legacy tour, Bush’s legacy that is and he’s
got to plant the seeds, because a Clinton presidency would obliterate his boy Bush, and Rove knows it.
But what’s at the bottom of the press grabbing on to Karl Rove’s rhetorical
turds? A couple of things, as far as I can tell so far, but clearly Clinton’s
performance since March has delivered a collective shock wave across the press
landscape. She’s not strident! She’s articulate! She’s not the dragon lady of
wingnut lore! And oh my gosh, maybe she doesn’t need Bill
to make her case after all (though he’s certainly a
huge plus). And she’s actually working for votes? Nah. Fuhgettaboutit.
Clinton is surprising a lot of people with her campaign. No one was more surprised
than me when I saw her at the health care forum earlier this year. She blew
her opponents off the stage. She’s been doing it ever since, except when she’s
holding steady, which gets no comment at all, except that somebody else “wins.”
However, now that her campaign skills have been proven and her ability to woo voters tallying up, the corporate hack pack doesn’t know quite how to react.
So they need an anti Hillary, someone who can take her down and Obama is the
closest guy they’ve got right now, because Gore isn’t running. Chris Matthew
said it succinctly recently. To paraphrase, I cover politics so I want this
race close. In Iowa, it’s a three-way dead heat. But nationally it is not. In New
Hampshire, it is not. South Carolina, Obama is up. However, in California and
Florida there’s only Clinton. But Obama has a lot of support and money, so just
maybe he can do it. Maybe he can, but he’s going to need some help.
The truth is that no one suspected that Hillary Clinton would be this good
at campaigning, working hard, reaching people and revealing to voters that she
knows what she’s talking about, least of all the corporate hack pack. Most suspected
her Iraq
vote would sink her. But when she stood up and said she would not apologize
and if that’s what you need vote for someone else suddenly the dynamic changed.
There will always be people she cannot convince, but there are others who can
be, plus more who believe she’s actually got the goods. The campaigning, making
her case, her debate prowess, but also the personality of the woman who has
been caricatured by the wingnuts as a political Leona Helmsley (may she rest
in peace) is surprising a lot of people. She’s defying the wingnuts carefully
crafted image, so Karl Rove has to drive it home one more time with feeling
and through his favorite medium: Rush radio. Too bad for him that Hillary’s
turned out to have a jaw of clay, not glass. Her sense of humor helps.
Hillary has a sense of humor? No kidding? Who knew?
Enter the underdog storyline, which is complimented perfectly by Karl Rove’s
latest “electability” sweepstakes. But if Hillary Clinton is the political Goliath
in this story who is David? In American politics you always need a David. In American culture
you always need an underdog. Obama is the closest Democratic David the press
can find in this race, an underdog at this point, especially with Biden and
Dodd joining Clinton in a foreign policy smackdown. (The media has crowned Mike
Huckabee the Republican David to Slick Mitt’s Goliath.) Never mind the underdog
is manufactured,
because Mr.
Obama’s having no
problem handling himself.
“It is not hypothetical that al Qaeda has established base camps in
the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama said. “No military
expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we
do have to deal with that problem.“And so, this is part of what I think Americans get frustrated about
in politics, where we have gamesmanship and we manufacture issues and controversies
instead of talking about the serious problem that we have, a problem that
this administration has made worse and that our invasion of Iraq has made
worse, but a problem that the next president is going to have to deal with.
And the American people deserve to hear what we’re going to do.”
The question of Obama’s experience is on the table, but somehow the press seems
bored. Obama’s nonplussed about it. Clinton’s electability and “fatally flawed” negativity,
compliments of a political grenade thrown into the mix by Karl Rove as he’s
walking out of the White House, is so much more interesting. Doubt Clinton, give
that young man, that Democratic David, a break. Goliath has got a chink.
However, in a country where politics is still governed through a patriarchal
system, who could be a bigger underdog than a female running for president in
a John Wayne country that presently is at war not only in Iraq and Afghanistan,
but also with half the world?
“Electability is bubbling up as an issue,” reported David
Shuster on “Hardball” last night.
But is electability and negativity the only storyline you can take from the
fact that Hillary Clinton has beaten her enemies and is besting her rivals, all the while doing it without Bill?
It will be if Karl Rove has anything to say about it and with help from the corporate hack pack he does.
In American politics it’s still good to be a man.
