Taylor Marsh on Hillary, Rove, and "Electability."

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.

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.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26090

I am never voting for any Republican for any office ever again, so it makes little difference to me who the nominee is. I have my preference (Obama), but that's OK. And why is any Democrat listening to anything Karl Rove says? That's how he's been playing with our minds (successfully) for years. I say we ignore him. Easier said than done, granted; but we've got to stop letting him play games with us. :grr:

Edwards is the most likely candidate to beat any REPUKE in the general election....and that the REPUKES will most likely be the ones to get Hillary the party nomination because then they know they can beat her....

Electing Hilliary is asking for 8 more years of distractions and nothing for the people getting done...

Sorry if TRUTH HURTS!!!!

it's speculation, it's punditry.

And I disagree with it.

If Edwards gets the nomination, there will be 8 more years of distractions identical to if it were Clinton. The RW attack machine would do with him and Elizabeth exactly what they did with the Clintons.

on a school yard. Something about rubber and glue and sticking to me, but not to you? :shrug:

Just shows how full of shit they are.

She also gets it wrong. By November 2004, the vast majority of people even slightly likely to vote for Kerry knew the SBVT were lying. Many voted fully aware that Bush fought dirty because they were tramatized and wanted someone willing to use any method, moral, amoral or immoral, to fight people seen as our enemies. They were afraid that Kerry might have the principles and morals his history seemed to show.

Consider this question. Let's say that through either Kerry's or Bush's policies, Iraq was stabalized and our soldiers were not needed - but the government had choosen to nationalize the oil reserves, which of the 2 would have been willing to leave and deal honorably to get oil for the US? Which one would never have allowed that to occur? The US lifestyle is dependent on realively cheap oil.