Rove Keeps Up Heat on Clinton

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - Master GOP strategist Karl Rove won't let up in his attacks on Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the intriguing question is why.

Is it a sign that Rove, who masterminded Bush's two presidential victories, is worried about Clinton? Or a calculation that the GOP attacks will get Democrats to rally to her side because the GOP would prefer not to take on Democrats John Edwards or Barack Obama?

``The Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it's going to be her,'' President Bush's departing political adviser said Sunday, noting her negative rating with the public is very high.

He appeared on three Sunday talk shows after announcing last week he was leaving the White House at the end of the month to spend more time with his family.

Asked why he was helping Clinton by saying she would headline the ticket, Rove said: ``Didn't know that I was. Don't think that I am.''

Then he harshly criticized Clinton, saying more people have an unfavorable than favorable opinion of the New York senator and former first lady.

``She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll,'' Rove said.

``It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years.'' Recent polling has shown the public evenly split on Clinton.

Rove might be revisiting his 2004 play book. Bush's re-election team aimed its harshest comments at Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the eventual nominee, because it wanted Bush to take on Kerry rather than Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6861797,00.html

There is more to the story at the above link.

attacking Hillary Clinton full time.

If he wanted to hurt her chances at this point he would say kind things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1618793

Obama misses the point; the wages paid Indians and Chinese are allowing their middle classes to blossom. The MSM is all over that; (and googling "Matrimony" on google the whole 1st page comes up with Indian-centric results. Even "Matrimony Christian" seems rather disproportionately Indian-friendly when Christianity isn't exactly their predominant religion.)

It's hard to compete for wages deemed sub-poverty in America yet are clearly goldmines to peoples in other countries. If we all are to be "globalized", the cost of living has to match the wages. And that is when Americans CAN become competitive again.

Never mind the cost of education, which is another story altogether despite the usual "it's beyond more and more Americans' reach due to exorbitant costs".

Obama is not on the radar screen and for good reason.

I started replacing the carpet in my house this morning.

Just sprucing it up. :)

But until the official candidates are presented, they're all up for nitpicking, satire, and the usual American pastime that's cheaper than MLB.

And you make a good point.

he's not the strategy wizard everyone seems to think he is. Hell, if Terry McCauliffe had had the MSM working for him the way Rove has these last seven years, we'd all be calling him a genius instead of a fool.

It's going to last 1 1/2 years, isn't it?

She's a candidate that can be toppled easier than blowing out a candle on a cake.

I'm already depressed. :( EXTREMELY!

about hillary. everyone on your side of the fence already have their minds made up. the center do`t care either because they`ll decide without your comments.so who you think you are going to influence? a dead horse?

who is our candidate?

I don't say that Clinton should be, though, of course, I will vote for her if she is. But for us to take time and resources to even pay attention to what they say now - this means that we've already lost the battle.