A creeping suspicion

This is getting to be just too weird.

Quoth the raven: "There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling....

"She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you look at, in the high 40s on the negative side and just below that on the positive side. And there’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position."

That, as you probably know, was Karl Rove speaking to Rush Limbaugh Wednesday, assessing Hillary Clinton's campaign. And he went farther -- much farther. She is "fatally flawed"; she "lack[s] the vision to be president"; she is "weak" on national security; she is unsupportive of our troops; and she opposes the "Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs and other antiterrorism measures."

Not surprisingly, Hillary was elated by all of Karl's negative attention, since drawing the wrath of the Bush administration is, these days, an absolutely priceless political gift: "I feel so lucky that I am now giving them such heartburn." she said with glee while campaigning in Iowa.

But wait, Karl knows that. Karl understands that assaulting Hillary means abetting Hillary. He never opens his mouth without some calculated, strategic purpose, and in this case the purpose is vastly obvious: He's actively trying to help the Clinton campaign.

The question, of course, is why. Barack Obama's people are speculating "that Mr. Rove is trying to help Mrs. Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination because, this thinking goes, she would be easier to beat than Mr. Obama." Other speculations abound, such as the right-wing attack machine is already geared up for Hillary and by God it's Hillary it shall have.

But here's my working theory. It sounds a bit conspiratorial and perhaps even borders on the daft -- but this is the Bush administration we're talking about, so pretty much anything imaginable falls into the realm of the possible.

Karl Rove isn't merely trying to help Hillary Clinton get nominated. Karl Rove wants Hillary Clinton elected.

Think about it. Do you think this Republican administration wants to be succeeded by another Republican administration? I, for one, think not. It wants a Democrat in the White House for at least the next four years, because the coming poor schmuck of a president -- no matter who he or she is -- naturally will be blamed for everything the Bush administration has so dismally launched into motion.

The next president will be accused of "losing" Iraq. The next president will be embroiled in the irremediable problems of the increasingly unstable Middle East. The next president will be forced to raise taxes, given the general fiscal nightmare he or she will inherit. The next president could very likely find him- or herself in the midst of the Great Depression II. The next president will be that much closer to the pit of the Baby Boomer crisis, with all its Social Security and Medicare funding problems.

Karl knows all this, and Karl wouldn't wish this mess on a fellow Republican. So he's praying for a Democratic president and another Democratic Congress in 2008, both of whom will suffer the electorate's immense anger and dissatisfaction in short order, to be followed in 2012 or 2016 by an overwhelming Republican congressional majority and Bush Administration Redux.

Karl Rove is still a young man, and his dream of a permanent Republican majority is still doable, in his eyes, but only if Democratic patsies are there to take the heat for a while.

As I said, perhaps it's a bit daft, but paradoxically it's also the only logical explanation I can come up with.

Comments

[Richard]

Doesn't sound conspiratorial or daft to me.
The repubs think long term and really hold a grudge. I just finished watching most of the PBS show on the '60's and it is amazing how many of the low level thugs then became national figures later (including Reagan).
Many of the issues that the religious right and the republicans get hot about were all part of the movements that grew out of the '60's (environmental, civil rights, women's rights).
How about this for a theory. The right-wing baby boomers yearn for the '50's (I have heard so many times in church that removing prayer in schools ruined the country). But what was great about the '50's? McCarthyism, Korean war, segregation, nuclear proliferation and cold war were all going on. The boomers think the '50's were great because they were CHILDREN then. So who's seeking a nanny state now? Our nation is being ruined by people who think they can legislate us back to their days of lolly pops and soda shops being manipulated by meglomanias bent on global domination.

[priscianus jr]

I yearn for the fifties too! I used to come home from school every day for lunch, my mother used to bake cookies, we watched Lassie and Superman on televiison, the sky was blue and the trees were green. But this is 2007, for Christ's sake. Grow up!

[Johanna]

I think you are right on. I have thought so while watching the on-going swiftboating of John Edwards since the beginning. He is the candidates that the neo-cons really don't want to run against. The Clintons have always been Republican-lite and I have always believed that the GOP only wanted us to think they were afraid of Hillary. It is remarkable to me that there has been no Hillary smearing going on. We've seen John Edwards hair, Obama/Osama, etc. but there has been nothing comparable aimed at Hillary. Hmmm. Are they holding their fire until the nomination? Personally, I think the GOP wins both ways with a Hillary nomination. She will inflame the GOP base and make a convenient punching bag to campaign against and if she wins, she will not be interested in overturning the scandalous Bush trashing of the Constitution but with her own corporate cronies, will continue down the same path -- only seemingly more "compassionately conservative".

[Romelee]

The Clinton got awful close to the Bushes . Watch Edwards and Obama ..

[Richard]

My guess is that Rove wants to get a democrat nominated who is:

a) defeatable - and Clinton is because of the strong negative views of her among conservatives

b) someone Republicans could live with if he or she is elected. Clinton, as a "centrist" who probably wouldn't end the war or prosecute the war mongers fits the bill.

So...whether Plan A or Plan B Clinton fits the bill.

[Max Fortres]

How about a candidate that is not a card carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations? Isn't that treason? Ron Paul is the only hope for America.

[matthew]

Even if she gets nominated,she's never going to be elected.I was a Clinton supporter in the 90s.I can't tell you how many people i have spoken to that feel the same sentiment;"i'm a democrat but i do not want Hillary Clinton as president".Edwards,Kucinich,Obama or Gore but no Hillary.She's doomed no matter what the 4th Reichers say or do.Doomed i say!

[Maezeppa]

"It sounds a bit conspiratorial and perhaps even borders on the daft -- "

It does. Karl Rove is NOT young. He's nuts. He's never been a good operative, just a sleazy dirty fighter with marginal success.

[billy]

Karl is crazy, there is no doubt about that, but he's not an idiot. I agree that the Republicans choice to run against is Hillary. She'll be a one-termer like Carter and will get healthcare through, and maybe some other stuff that the Corporations will figure how to make money from. Then the next election will be about socialized medicine and the commies in the White House. Mommy & her Mommy State. It won't be pretty.

[Alan Charles]

I think too many Democrats yearn for the way things were under Bill and see Hillary as a way of having that again.

I do not see that happening with Hillary as our President.

I have posted on many sites stating that if we REALLY want our troops out of Iraq, only one candidate has been against the war since its inception and he has introduced HR 1234 to lay out a complete plan for ending it, which is what we all claim to want.

There is nothing at all wrong with Obama or Edwards, and
I would be glad to support them should they become our party nominee, however, I'm not sure either of them is as dedicated to getting us out of Iraq as Dennis Kucinich has continued to be.

[The Next to Last Pope]

Applying the principle of parsimony, I’d guess that Rove is out there trashing Hillary because he thinks she’s got a lock on the nomination and so the smearing should commence immediately.

[chanceny]

Not daft at all, but consider this. The evil pudgestir failed to attain his vision for one-party domination. He just might figure Hillary would make a great pinada for the crazy righties to punch at will, even though defeating her may not necessarily ensue, he'd dirty her up enough to cripple her presidency. He might just want to push the crap left in his wake to a dem and start the blame game anew. But, considering his track record of dismal failure, his complete misreading of the vast majority of Americans, whatever polluted path he envisions embarking upon to insure his historical legacy, it will go down in flames. Cause, in the end, the prick's a disgusting embodiment of all that's immoral. amoral, hypocritical, mendacious and hateful, and most offensive to Americans, a con artist cheat who rigs the game and declares victory. Eff him and the lame ass he rode in on!

[Angelina MaldeTesta]

Hillary is a member of the Bush crime family - Bill and Hill gained entry when he, as governor of Arkansas, allowed Iran-Contra drugs to be smuggled in and out of his airport in Mena, Arkansas - under Poppy's direction.
IF they do not believe they can get away with cancelling elections (they have put in place all the legal means to do so) they will only allow the crown to rest on the head of someone they completely control. Enter Hill - perfect choice. Member of the clan, first woman Prez, a "Democrat" - and she will love being a "dictator" dancing to Poppy's tune.
Of course Rover is laying the groundwork to put her in place - IF they decide they need her. It is part of the grand plan.
It keeps the dog and pony show of Dems and Repubs going - behind the curtains they are one and the same. No "leading" Dem has a program different than the one now in place.
The only ones who propose meaningful change - like restoring the Constitution - can't get a voice in the MSM - Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. All the "leading" "candidates" are part of the charade.
Important fact to remember when considering Hill - she knew when she voted to go into Iraq that there were no "WMD". She knew they had been destroyed by 1995. She knew and Bill knew and Gore knew and all of the top crew under Clinton knew.
On August 7, 1995 Gen. Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons programme, defected to Joran and into the arms of the UN inspectors and the CIA. He brought crates of documents on past weapons programs. His testimony (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf) that all WMD had been destroyed was corroborated but kept secret. He was lured back to Iraq and killed for his treason.
Newsweek broke the story February 24, 2003 but no one paid much attention to its significance. It is the proof that all at the top knew that all WMD had been destroyed due to the pressure from the presence of UN inspectors - the inspections worked and everyone at the top knew it.
So, not only did Powell, Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al, know -BUT HILLARY, BILL, GORE et al KNEW TOO - yet they said not a word and she voted to bomb a country she knew was no threat to anyone.
Of course, they want her in if they feel forced to allow "elections" - she is already programmed to sit on the throne - there are great rewards for keeping your mouth shut.

[Angelina MaldeTesta]

Typo in my post - Kamel defected to Jordan (not Joran). Sorry,

[janet]

Hillary would be just right for the republicans, they will fight her tooth and nail over everything, leave her with a mess, and then say, "we were right about her, weren't we". Their goal is to never, ever have another democrat elected to the presidency, so giving Hillary or someone 8 years to wreck the image of the democrats is just another play in the game. They will bide their time, and wait for a better day. Hillary might be just playing into their hands, much as I hate to say it.

[chimpevil]

I agree that the right is totally freaked by Edwards and Obama and would love to have Hillary as the candidate because they have SO MANY Hillary talking points to go with. But I also think it's hilarious that the right wing (as well as MSM peeps) attack Edwards as phony--as if any presidential candidates are totally genuine, give me a break!

[Ms. Tart]

Or maybe she's going to be the hardest to beat, just like the polls say. Rove wants Obama or Edwards because they're going to be easier for the Republicans to beat. This isn't Princess Bride; Rove is not expecting the general public to make make too many leaps of logic over which chalice the poison is in.

Sometimes you just have to use Occam's razor.

[Roy]

More to the point--is there any foreign or domestic issue on which Hillary Clinton's policy would differ substantively from Bush/Cheney's?

[Bill Barger]

I agree with Ms. MaldeTesta they may cancel the election. Given a new crisis with Iran, Dubya has the power to declare martial law and give himself further dictatorial powers, all he needs is an excuse, and maybe not even that. Sounds crazy but these are crazy times.

[jerrol davis]

I'm not important. I'm not wealthy. I work hard. And I can read, think, and add. The polarization of resources that has taken place since 1970 has been a slide downhill for my class, the middle class. We used to call ourselves that, knowing that we were working people who wanted to raise our kids to be good Americans; that life was hard, and there were no guarantees for anybody. Somewhere between the end of WWII and the seventies, our heritage of community, church, and family slipped away. We were scared out of our traditional strength that most of the "middle class" has always treasured. The strength we lost was that realization that we are all human, and we can all die. Somehow, like a kid who is spoiled by too many Christmas presents, we got the idea that Americans were immortal and infallible. Our moms and dads and uncles and aunts who were alive during the great depression and WWII didn't feel that way. They knew that death is our constant companion, and that is the way it has always been. The arrogance that Americans have come to feel toward other countries, and toward one another is based on fear and loss of self respect. We prate on and on about God, and the next minute, we are blithely killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of our fellow humans. We go on and on about the right to life, and sit by when genocide goes on day after day in Africa. We are so afraid of each other that we want to put up walls to keep out people who are only trying to live themselves. Where is generosity? Where is humility? Where is the true love of a man, that is so great that if he lays down his life for a friend, there can be no greater gift? Where are the people who really and truly love? I'm looking for you, and I find you driving taxicabs, riding the bus with me, shopping alongside me buying worthless overpriced food from huge coorporations who don't give a damn what kind of crap they are selling. I see you sleeping in cramped conditions in shelters, lying about aimlessly in the streets, walking and talking to the air while you try to find your poor lost humanity. But I don't see you in our leaders. There isn't one single contender for public office that has a shred of humanity except maybe Dennis Kucinich. Everybody else is in the old political game. You and I are powerless against the coroporate might that has taken over our voting, our congress, and our justice system. We don't stand a chance against the media. Keith and John and Stephen and people on Air America radio are trying to wake us up with humor and reality. If we don't start to stand up together...and I mean everybody that considers themselves a good human being...if we don't start to treat one another with respect and dignity and refuse to let the corporate government control every single bit of our lives, we have only ourselves to blame. And if we don't stop the persecution of minorities, women, gays, people of color, and religious persecution of anyone who doesn't exhibit "our" kind of dogmatic approach to spirituality, christian, muslim, jew, hindu, bhuddist, whatever...if we don't stop all that silly, silly, silly, made up playground junior high shit......well, I guess we deserve what we're going to get. Believe me. If you aren't about love for yourself and your neighbor simply because you and he/she are both human, you have lost your birthright, and you can't get it back without soul searching and humility.

[Dimples]

When Hillary addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this year she pretty much promised the pro-Israel lobby an attack on Iran.

An attack that your kids are going to have to fight.

AIPAC is considered one of the three most powerful lobbies in D.C.

Hillary, or rather, Hitlery, Clinton, like every other candidate, is bought an sold by the Israel lobby.

Evidence? 80 out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are spending part of their August recess in Israel courtesy of a division of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

So a good percentage of our congressional representatives are spending their time in Israel listening to the concerns of Israeli citizens (except for Palestinians, who are stateless and trapped in the world's largest prison,because of our carte blanche support of Israel) while we, the people our congress purport to represent, are left without a voice.

All the candidates have paid fealty to the Israel lobbies so we're F-ed.

Endless war, police state -- all because of the power of a rogue, apartheid, terrorist state, that has bought and sold our whores in the our so-called government.

If you want to see Hitlery sell us (and your kids' lives) out to the pro-Israel lobby, do a web search of her command appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference this year.

We need to arm ourselves with knowledge and kick all the bums in the two parties out before they completely destroy the Bill of Rights and kill us all.

[Larry]

Perhaps Dimples will recall that Israel is the only Democracy in the MIddle East - we are interested in the spreading of democracy, after all (see Iraq). If I recall correctly, 20% of Israelis are Arabs who don't seem to be in hurry to leave such a horrible country. In fact, how many of the 22 or so Arab countries surrounding Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are lending financial and moral support to their fellow Arabs? Their whole rant is anti-Israel, not pro democracy.
Larry

[STParker]

Perhaps he wants Hillary to get nominated to cover his policy bases. The GOP are pretty much guaranteed that their nominee will be a war-hawk. Hillary represents the closest thing to a hawk in the Democratic field. If he can pit her against the GOP nominee it is a win win proposition.

[STParker]

Posted by: Larry | August 18, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I was watching Brooklyn cable access TV the other day. The show was jewish affiliated. I forget what the name was.
The host started going on about how corrupt the Israeli government was, and I was nodding my head, like, "this guy gets it."
But then he said, "who has the courage to go beyond talking and actually attack Iran" as if the issue has already been concluded. I could read the contempt that this gentleman had for other opinions on his face, and on the smiling faces of his sycophants. It was both frightening and maddening.

Apparently Iran already has nuclear weapons, is prepared to use them (specifically against Israel), and that this should be the primary concern of America. The fact that all of this is BS posturing by the US and Israeli governments is beside the point. They want a war and they want it now.

So, Israel, may be a technical "democracy" although it excludes the West Bank and Gaza whom it's decisions effect from the process, and denies those areas the right to elect their own officials. Israel might be a "technical" democracy in that it allows it's citizens to vote, but it defines the parameters of its discourse to deny the right of its citizens to question the jewish character of the state of Israel or to advocate against a policy of Jewish primacy in Israel. Any nation that has as its primary function the protection and support of a certain ethnic and/or religious group will, by definition be discriminatory towards all other ethnic groups.

So perhaps Israel is a democracy, but that democracy is limited by the neccessities of maintaining the Jewish state. It doesn't help that so many supporters of Israel are either willfully blind to this or completely insane, like the gentleman on Brooklyn cable access.

If you support Israel you are supporting ethno-nationalism enforced by military dominance and the suppression of speech either through official policy or social taboo. That might be a democracy, but it's not any kind of democracy I would like to live in.

[Doug]

Reynolds wrap, anyone?
Honestly, I haen't read such paranoical rantings since reading about the "Know Nothng" party in the 1830's!
Karl Rove is an idiot, plain and simple. Because he was willing to trash everyone and everything (including the Constitution) to win elections people have elevated him to near-omnipotent status.
This is the man who was in charge of the Katrina clean-up, who had the "right" numbers in 2006, thought wasting Bush's "mandate" on SS reform was a great idea. Shall I go on?
Face it, the next president will most likely be a Democrat. That president will probably have to raise (some) taxes, will have to straighten out the DoJ, finish up the Iraq fiaso. And then there's health care. Anything that person does will be met with screams of horror and outrage from the neo-con rightwingers and their enablers.
The great Karl Rove, who has screwed up everything he's touched, naturally wants that person to be the one he thinks is the most vulnerable - and he obviously thinks that person is HRC, a woman, a Democrat, and best of all, a CLINTON. Just another example of the rightwingers' wish to live in the past.
Even if HRC is the nominee and loses, does anyone think the House and Senate are going to fall into the hands of the Republicans? Without a majority in both Houses, without K Street and Delay (and Abramoff), and without the corrupt Republican management of the House of Representatives, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get away with the crimes (literally) that they have. And again, whether or not we have a Democratic president in 2008, we will have control of the House and Senate.
Just another example of the "great" thinker that is Karl Rove.

[Gwen]

This is the reality. Let's put another Republican in and observe the neded demise of a rotten system, under its architects. YEAH!!! If the change occurs at "midstream" the American public will not "get it" e.g. the conclusion of the spiral in process. They never do. Reversal now will (1) maintain that illusion, and (2) blame the victims of an in-human, bankrupt and flawed philosophy and policy.

I know I'm whistling "Dixie," but it makes me feel better--for a moment.
g