Karl Rove on Obama's Exaggerations and Best Move for FL/MI

Yesterday I mentioned that following Hillary Clinton's interview with Greta Van Susteren, Karl Rove came on and gave a laundry list of exaggerations by Barack Obama. He spoke really fast so I couldn't grab them all, but the transcript is now on Lexis. Here's his list:

"We have had Senator Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

He claimed to be involved in an asbestos campaign in public housing in his book, and it turned out not to be the case.


He claimed that he had a racial awakening at the age of 9 by reading a LIFE magazine article about an African-American man was scarred physically and mentally by trying to make himself look more white. LIFE magazine and Ebony magazine never published such an article.

Senator Obama said, I didn't have much of a relationship with Rezko. He didn't raise me much money. This is the guy under indictment in Chicago. We didn't have a very serious relationship. And then refused to give interviews to The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun-Times to answer their questions.

Well, when the Reverend Williams (ph) story broke, when there was all that bad news about Reverend Williams (ph), Senator Obama called up on a Friday, the same day that the Williams (ph) stuff was boiling hot, called up The Sun-Times and The Trib, and said, I'll give you those interviews now about Rezko, in which he said, yes I had a deeper, longer, more significant relationship with him.

He raised me a lot more money and the real estate deal was just as stinky as you thought it was, but nobody in America -- or very few people in America saw that because those stories ran at a time when our focus was on something else, Reverend Wright and his extreme comments.

Rove also had a suggestion for Florida and Michigan. It helps Obama.

He has just appointed 25 Dean loyalists to the what will ultimately be a 186- member credentials committee. The other 161 delegates who will sit on this committee will be chosen in June. They will be apportioned out between the principal presidential candidates on the basis of a percentage of the delegates or a percentage of the votes that they have won at that point.

But Dean signaled clearly by picking 25 loyalists, and they are clearly Dean loyalists, that he intends to have a majority of this committee that will back him up on what he decides on Florida and Michigan.

And so far, he has been very tough and very stubborn and very firm, no delegates at all, which is a big problem for the Democrats. I mean, these are 44 electoral votes in two battleground states that are going to be very tough for the Democrats in the fall if this sticks.

VAN SUSTEREN: What would be the most effective strategy for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in dealing with Dean since he obviously -- you know, he holds the money on this?

ROVE: Well, for Senator Clinton, it is to say every state needs to be included and every state's vote needs to be respected. I actually think Senator Obama has the capacity to resolve this situation in a way that gives him a big advantage, but it would have to be a gutsy call.

And that is, at some point, probably in June, after the delegates have all been elected, we have our final caucus -- I mean our final primary in Puerto Rico, it would be a gutsy call if Senator Obama stepped forward and said, I want to seat Florida and I want to seat Michigan. I know they did the wrong thing, but we did the wrong -- but we should not compound our error by not seating them. Seat the entire delegations.

Now, if he is ahead by 100 to 150 votes at that point, by my calculations, she picks up 54 delegates on him if these two delegations are seated, and it -- but it is a gutsy call. And he -- you know, if he is 150 ahead, he suddenly becomes 100 ahead. If he is 100 ahead, he suddenly becomes 50 ahead.

But I think it gives him -- it makes him look like a leader. It resolves the situation. It helps him in the fall in these two states. And it probably gets a lot of the superdelegates to step forward and say, that was a courageous move, and I am going to support him as a result of him doing this.

If Obama takes his advice, will he credit Karl Rove?

< DNC Blogger Credential Conference Call Tuesday | Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Karl found a lemon and made lemonade (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    I don't think that Bush could have been elected without Karl.

    Mike Allen is in the tank for Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by Exeter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    He's been pretty outragious. Academia has its rules about who is called a professor and how to achieve academic rank. The University of Chicago is simply being disingenuous with their statement.

    no you are wrong (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    I've said it's a trifling matter but he was not a professor. He was a senior lecturer in law. Those of us who have been lecturers in law at law schools, including myself, and professors, know the difference and it's not a matter of semantics. What he was invited to do and declined doesn't change the facts. Nor does what students called him. My students called me "Professor" too.

    He was not a constitutional law professor. He taught con law at a law school.

    It was an exaggeration.


    not that there's anything wrong with that! (none / 0) (#138)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    He taught con law at a law school.

    but he wasn't a professor. no, it isn't merely a matter of "semantics", "senior lecturer" and "professor" are not the same. if they were, the school would have said so. they didn't.

    what they said was that senior lecturers were often referred to by the honorific "professor". that isn't the same as actually being one.

    my goodness, if this is the best that can be done on such a minor detail, imagine the field day the republican/rightwingut smear machine will have with all of them!


    The GOP will do just that during the general (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    election I would bet

    Axelrod: Rove envy (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    Since Axelrod is sort of the Rove heir apparent, I can see where Rove is relevant.  Actually, most of the A list bloggers, are into Rove  envy as well, they always wanted the Dems to have a Rove or imitate Rove.  Win at any cost.  

    David Axelrove? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    Awsome (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    Barack's Brain? (none / 0) (#57)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    I don't know and don't want to know (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by WillBFair on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    what Rove is playing at. He's a rube. But most of Obama's false statements are well known. And they don't make it into the evening news, which is too busy smearing Hillary. Despite the sneer campaign, I still enjoy celebrating the kind-hearted brilliance of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the greatest policy experts of our time.

    And the Missing Word Is... (none / 0) (#34)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
    But most of Obama's false statements are well known. And they don't make it into the evening news...


    if Obama is the dem nominee, the smallest gaffe will become legion. Flat out lies will be flying fast and furious. The HUGE unanswered question is whether or nor team-O could return serve.


    Obama supporters should really look at (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    what happened to Hillary and be concerned.

    When the GOP starts laying out his 'exaggerations' along with his 'experience' . . . OY.


    Won't work on McCain (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42:56 AM EST
    So far, about the only comeback they've used is to fling racism accusations around, and that ain't gonna work with McCain and the general.

    (sorry about the aborted comment above, finger slipped..)


    Maybe I'm missing something... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    But I don't see how Rove's suggestion is particularly gutsy. He says that Obama should wait until June, after all the primaries are finished, then come forward with the 'seat them all' suggestion. But at that point, we'll know the final numbers for pledged delegates, and frankly, it will be pretty clear which way things are headed. (Either Clinton will have blown out Obama from PA onward, and will have all but secured the nomination, or she won't have, and will have all but lost.) Obama will know exactly how many delegates ahead he is, and will probably have a very, very good idea of how many Supers are in his pocket as well. There's no risk...just some quick math.

    Heck, I'd be very surprised if Obama didn't do just that. The risk is minimal and the PR fantastic.

    Now, calling for the delegates to be seated BEFORE all the primaries are finished...that would gutsy. (and would truly mark him as a leader) However, it would have to be done in conjunction with the DNC, to make sure that states don't walk away with the wrong lesson.

    I agree that he has already passed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    on the chance to be gutsy( I would say "do the right thing"). I know you have compared the states to children but they aren't. They don't learn lessons. The people in the states could care less about the DNC and their twisted power plays. The state parties and the DNC need to get their act together.

    I don't think he's completely missed... (none / 0) (#36)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:11:07 PM EST
    his chance to impress. Seating them now would be pretty damn gutsy. Seating them after PA and NC might still be a worthy gesture, depending on how they turn out. But with each passing primary, the genuine value decreases. Waiting until June pretty much turns it into a PR ploy.

    I agree that states aren't children, but you still have to make sure that state parties have a vested interest in playing by the rules, and that means making sure they don't benefit from breaking them.


    Roolz (none / 0) (#151)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:36:50 PM EST
    "I agree that states aren't children, but you still have to make sure that state parties have a vested interest in playing by the rules, and that means making sure they don't benefit from breaking them."

    What benefit?  Name me a benefit.  As it turned out the DNC completely blew it on this one. The DNC found a way to wound the party.  Brilliant.

    If you really want to talk about 'da roolz' it should be noted that six states broke the rules and two were given the death penalty.

    This is no kid's game.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    I've been saying for a week or so that Obama should agree now to seat FL and MI.

    I really want Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    to win, but somehow Fox and Co. attacking Obama makes me want to take a second look at him. The last thing I want is Rove, of all people, having any influence whatsoever on our nominee. It makes me sick. That said, I'm still in Hillary's corner for now.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    that's why he'd doing this.  Doesn't make any sense.

    And everyone is assuming that in June Obama's going to be way ahead.


    OMG! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    This election is getting too weird. I thought the Republicans wanted Obama to be the nominee?  I must say, I was impressed with Greta Van Sustern's interview of Hillary.  She seemed respectful, even when Hillary criticized Bush.

    She also did a nice interview (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:18 PM EST
    with President Clinton in NO a couple weeks ago. I like her style. She lets people finish what they are saying, unlike many on MSNBC. Many times, I expected her to cut him off and spin what he said, but she let the complete thought/concept of what he was saying finish. It was a 3 segment interview. I started watching her a bit after that.

    Greta's a good girl (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:20 AM EST
    but she's never been interested or tuned in to politics, so her views are very much influenced by the Fox echo chamber.  Fox has had her pounding on Wright every night, always with the word "hateful" in the description of his statements.

    But she's a smart and instinctively fair person, not prone to the ugly cynicism and gotcha crap of the political press.


    Greta has seen politics from the inside (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:20:54 AM EST
    and seen it go bad (deservedly) for her father.  (We grew up with their story in Wisconsin.)

    It would be interesting to see her interview Chelsea Clinton.


    Greta (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    is interested in politics and has interviewed many politicians.

    Jeralyn, did you see Huff Post on (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    whether Obama was a "Professor"?  Apparently Univ. of CHicago says "yes."

    just wrote a new post on it (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    Is that why Rush wants people to vote for Hillary? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    I'm sure some of them want Obama, but plenty of them want Hillary (SNIPER FIRE!). Both Obama and Hillary have vulnerabilities. The idea that one of them will be significantly stronger (or weaker) vs the republican smear machine is a myth perpetuated by both the Hillary and the Obama camps.

    Either of them can win if the party unites behind them after this tortuous primary.


    What are the repercussions of Rush's game? (none / 0) (#87)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM EST
    Every election which Clinton has won since his announcement has been tainted with accusations that she only won because of fake crossover votes.

    Clinton being stronger in terms of the smear machine isn't a myth, but it doesn't mean that she is immune to it, just partially insulated. She has been so thoroughly vetted that it's ridiculous. Numerous books have been written listing her crimes and many of the accusations are absolutely ridiculous. If she is attacked, all she has to do is point to some of the more ridiculous charges and remind people that there are nutcases who don't like her. The charges of racism hurt her because 1) they attacked a fundamental strength - her popularity among minorities and 2) they were from left wing sources who couldn't be discredited without tearing apart the party. She may be to badly marked to be elected, but time will tell. I'm still certain that Obama can't win. There are too many cracks in his armour for the right to exploit, and he is not familiar enough to the nation to insulate himself.


    Not quite (none / 0) (#127)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:45:40 AM EST
    The only election where people have actually suggested that she may have won because of crossover votes is Texas and that's probably overstating the case. There is good evidence the crossovers cost Obama 1 delegate in Mississippi but whatever.

    The main point I would make about strength vs the Republican smear machine is that it's a mistake that to think that the public has reached the apex of its negative feelings about the Clintons. Clinton fatigue is very real and it can be activated through repeated attacks. The recent poll that showed her negatives rising sharply is evidence of this. The Sniper story is a new "Clinton lies" story that the right wing will gleefully exploit. She hasn't yet released certain records. The vetting is not over for her by any means.

    I DO think that the Clintons are better at counterpunching than Obama, and they have also won the right to call themselves "tough." Whatever people think about the Clintons no one, not even the right wing, thinks they are weak and that's a strength vs the republican attack machine. There is a sense in which they can't be swiftboated because they are already viewed so negatively by a certain portion of the populations. But it can be easily argued that those already existing negatives can be exploited to unify the right wing base.

    On the flip side there is no question that Obama is still a blank slate by comparison and therefore can be as easily painted negatively as he can be painted positively. Obama really does function as a kind of national rorsach test and that can cut both ways. He is indeed a "roll of the dice" in many ways.

    My view is that both of these candidates have great potential to do well or do poorly. I think both sides overstate how good they will be or how bad the other one will be. That's the nature of ardent supporters I guess. I prefer at this point to look foreward to the point where this will be over, we have our nominee and we can focus on preventing this country from sinking into a 3rd bush term.

    It's quite terrifying how many are willing to say they'd rather have John McSame than Clinton or Obama. It really shows how irrational some people have gotten.


    Republicans know that identification (none / 0) (#147)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    is key to winning elections. Similar personal character attacks like these -- serial liar, serial exaggerator, inauthentic, calculating, pandering, elitist, "out of the mainstream" etc., etc. -- are routinely and persistently pushed against Democrats of every background, experience and personality type. The point is to create distrust, limit the voters' ability to identify with the candidate and the party they represent. (They are not "one of us.") The Clinton's enjoy more "negatives" only because they have been around longer and been more successful nationally than others -- and therefore have been more unrelently attacked in this manner.

    But those personal negatives earned by individual candidates over time don't matter -- for those candidates -- as much as people fear. Research shows that party identification and perceived self-interest are the most important factors in national elections.

    The generalized characterization and perception of Democrats as people who are dishonest, inauthentic and "not one of us" is a bigger problem -- because it interferes with party identification.

    The truth is, given the realities that govern most national elections, both of these candidates most likely enjoy similar "electability" -- because of factors that simply favor change and ANY Democrat at this time.


    They want to win the election (none / 0) (#86)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:43:16 AM EST
    I think they wanted Obama to be the nominee, but are worried about his popularity and "teflon" reputation, so they're insulating themselves and testing for cracks in his armour. He is as weak now as he ever will be, with Wright still in the news and Obama himself not handling the situation well (good speech, too long, no clever soundbites, then off to the Virgin Islands instead of staying to deal with the repercussions). If the party switches to Clinton now, without Obama's endorsement, there will be a major rift. Even if he endorses it, some of his supporters will simply refuse to support her. The right stands everything to gain by weakening Obama.

    As for the respect - these guys are very respectful to Democrats faces. They only tear them apart when they're not there to defend themselves.


    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:52:48 PM EST
    Rove trying to sound reasonable when he has been anything less is scary to me. He did bad things and was more than a little dishonest. Can't stand that he even has a gig on TV as if he's relevant, which unfortunately, he still is .

    Rove is more than scary (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:21 PM EST
    He was deeply involved in the firing of the US attys. And, depsite his good fortune at seeing Libby as the fall guy, he played a central role in the Plame outing.

    He's amoral and has no qualms about destroying lives and livelihoods. He'll take on either Hillary or Barack, it's all the same to him. The question is, which one's army is more capable of fending him off?


    Not embracing (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM EST
    Just helping us understand what he can (and will) use in a GE.

    Totally (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by rebrane on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:46 PM EST
    Don't forget that these guys lie. (And occasionally commit perjury.)

    What's the big genius in seating (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    them if he would still be ahead? She has been saying seat them and neither has the power to do so. Seating them if they don't change anything is nothing. It still doesn't add to the popular vote.

    It gives Obama the goodwill (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    of everyone in the party, especially the superdelegates.  I think if Obama made this announcement now, the superdelegates that are on the fence would publcily come out and support him and this thing would be over by May.

    His delegate lead is safe, in my opinion, and the popular vote is only something for the superdelegates to consider - it does not officially mean a thing.  Obama taking the high road and solving the FL and MI problem would way offset whatever credit Hillary would get from that popular vote.


    Whose Good Will (none / 0) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    Everyone in the party does not seem to include the rank and file.  Many of us find his opposition to re-votes in Michigan and Florida unforgivable.

    He would have gotten his clock cleaned in both re-votes and would have lost all momentum.  It would have finished him off and he knows it.


    Listen to Rove (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST
    but don't forget whose side he's on.

    He wants Obama to win, but he wants to weaken him for the general election too.

    At first the GOP was bashing Hillary.  When Obama started to pull away, the GOP turned on him.

    As soon as we have a nominee, they will crank up the slime machine to full speed.

    why oh why oh why does the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    and blogs refuse to report ANY of this? Hillary had a slight embellishment and it was headlines for DAYS!!! Matthews repeated the media narrative AGAIN tonight tha only Hillary needs superdelegates to "steal" the nom.

    Matthews was (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:05:34 AM EST
    particularly vile this evening, the whole "she's out to destroy the party" line.  Ugh.  The only one who even slightly stood up for her was (yech) Tucker Carlson.

    I agree about Tucker- recently (none / 0) (#82)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:19:48 AM EST
    believe it or not, FOX has seemed the voice of reason compared to the others. Most of the left blogs are simply disconneted from reality.

    Karl Rove -Obama Exaggerations (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by athy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    I m not worried about Rove. I think he is trying to psyche out Clinton supporters. I am worried about new revelations that are coming out each day about Obama. He is a weak candidate and the longer the race continues the weaker he will be exposed to be. Consolidated corp media is protecting him for some reason.There is no way on earth he stood a chance in November against Rep attack machine once you read all about his past.
    Many independent journalists & citizen jounalists have pulled through for us by picking up where our media dropped the ball.


    Barack-I-Didn't-Know-Obama- By MBolack
    Read this well-documented scathing expose:


    The more I learn about this man, the more certain I am that he should not lead our country.
    Also read the blogger comments-many more leads.

    Material on this website backed up with links to info sources.  Please forward link  to others.
    Too much at stake in this election...Thanks...

    The media is corporate and therefore (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    loyal to the GOP, which supports corporations. They are setting up Obama so they can take him down in the GE. They know they can't destroy Hillary, they have been trying for years. But Obama is an easy target with multiple cracks that they can widen and bring him down. His lies about his upbringing, his claims of "foreign policy experience" from living abroad, his connection to Wright and his support of him, his lies about his legislative record, etc. etc. They will expose Obama for what he really is, an unqualified opportunist, an ego in an empty suit. Then we will have Pres. McCain. And we will be able to thank Barack Obama for that. And don't think I won't thank him, by email, letter and in person if I get the chance.

    Bye! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    I don't understand why some people insist on sticking their head in the sand whenever someone wants to discuss what Republican attacks on Obama would look like, but whatever.  Maybe if we don't talk about it the Republicans will forget to attack.

    But the Repubs are elephants (none / 0) (#74)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42:29 AM EST
    and elephants never forget.

    Rove's attack on Obama (none / 0) (#93)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    Is literally from a Clinton campaign memo.  

    So much for the notion that the Republicans have some as-yet-undisclosed dirt on Obama.


    They aren't going to give Hillary any ammo (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    so anything they know is going to be kept close until the GE campaign. No point in giving Hillary ammo so they have to run against her instead of Obama. I would bet that they have state legislators lined up from Ill. who will give chapter and verse on Obama's non-involvement with the legislation he claims to have written and gotten through the legislature, and the connection to Rezko will be totally exploited. If Obama gets the nomination, he is toast. Game over.

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#110)
    by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    The fact there is no evidence for it is proof that it's true.

    Since when did the GOP need evidence? (none / 0) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    The only time they worry about evidence is when it is evidence against them, and then they do their level best to bury it. Evidence has nothing to do with GOP campaigns. Haven't you noticed that?

    Some on this site (none / 0) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    that support Obama haven't heard this info before.  I'm guessing some people that don't pay as close attention as the blogger world haven't heard them either.

    time to hang it up (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by tacotime on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:16 AM EST
    You all can point out all the problems with obama that you want- but HIllary can't win the nomination and she needs to hang it up to prevent further damage to the party.

    about 23 things would have to happen for her to pull it out. Most likely, none of them will. Why is she still running- it is going to hurt the party.

    What is going to hurt the party is (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    nominating an ego in an empty suit who has nothing but rhetoric to offer. It will show that the Democrats prefer style over substance, to the detriment of the country. I want a President that WORKS, not one who puts their name on other peoples' work and claims it as his own, not one who thinks that saying something is the same as doing it, and one who can discuss policy in detail when asked, not retreat into a series of "uhs" when asked to speak on his policies. Barack Obama is not qualified to be President, and if the Democrats nominate him, the Republicans will be sure to point that out at every opportunity. Right now, at this point in our history, we cannot afford to indulge in dreamy eyed fantasies about what could be, we need to deal with the reality of what is. Obama doesn't seem to be able to do this. We know Hillary can.

    whatever (4.00 / 0) (#119)
    by tacotime on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    whatever. She can't win. she can't win. 23 or maybe 24 things would have to go right for her to win. it is undeniable that the longer she stays in and she and/or her surrogates trash obama and prevent him from uniting the party- the more she damages th democrats. undeniable.

    So- do what's best for the dems and drop out HRC.

    for the record- no matter who wins, B.O. or HRC, I will vote for and support them. the people who say that if their candidate does not get the nomination they'll vote for mccain- reprehensible.


    Because most of the legislation (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    on his resume isn't his. He has NO foreign policy experience, hasn't even had one committee meeting to enhance his foreign policy education and creds, and has only served two years in a national office. I don't see his time as a state Senator as qualifying him for the Presidency. The Illinois State Legislature only meets four(4) months a year. So he doesn't have as many "years" of experience as he claims. He also put his political career above the needs of his constituents at every turn in Chicago. That should disqualify him right there. You want more? He used his office in both Senates to enrich himself, and his wife. That is considered unethical if not illegal.

    Obama isn't a new type of politician, he is the old-style Chicago politician dressed up in a shiny new suit, with pretty words swirling around him. Well, I don't want someone like that in the WH, and I don't think anyone who thinks about it does either.


    This is now the Democratic brand (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST
    Dishonest. Panderers. Inauthentic. Serial liars. Calculating. Will "do or say anything," etc., etc.

    Such generic characterizations are now seen by a majority of Americans to apply to ALL Democrats. And, of course, partisans of one candidate over another are mostly always willing to believe they at least apply to their candidate's rivals.  

    Democrats, including Obama, have fully participated in the creation of this ugly image -- by indulging in personal character assassinations against party rivals and, for short term personal gain, refusing to stand up strongly against such characterizations when they are applied to other Democrats by the media and the Republicans.

    I'm not talking about favorability polls (none / 0) (#133)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    Which have been improving relative to the Republicans recently thanks to a completely failed presidency and corruption scandals.

    I'm talking about perception and image. The simple truth is, while Democrats are doing marginally better than Republicans at the moment, over the last almost 3 decades the ranks of those who call themselves "independents" has grown while the number of people who identify as Democrats has shrunk. Despite the fact that in the same period, at the national level, Democrats have shown themselves to be much better at governance than the other party.

    We're not being defeated because of our policies (which most Americans support) or by our performance in terms of governance. We're being defeated by an image of Democrats as dishonest, pandering, inauthentic hypocrites.

    An image the party can't seem to stop participating in creating.


    Democrats should not use Rove (3.66 / 3) (#58)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:26:24 PM EST
    and his critiques of Obama.

    Can't any support of Hillary be based on her virtues?

    Hillary was caught in an embarrassing lie about her trip to Bosnia. I think she should say some cariation of this,

    "In the heat of this race, I did not tell the story of my trip to Bosnia accurately. I will hold myself to a higher standard, I apologize.

    "I am a little angry at myself, because the trip was important, and Our Great Armed Forces routinely allow USO and other Americans to visit War Zones with the ultimate assurance of personal safety.

    "My misrepresentations seem to have blotted out a great story of my 80 plus trips overseas, and especially of my visits to American service men and women who none of us can do enough to support.

    "I think I try to hard to be poerfect, when being myself is all I ever need to be."

    I think that speech or some variation would kill the whole issue and bring her back to what is one of her strengths.

    I like the one (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    idea from someone who posted here, something along the lines of .... I've watched to many action/adventure movies.....

    FYI, check out the rules. Word choice is important.  No one like the word 'lie.'


    Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by dmk47 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:45:52 PM EST
    "Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child"

    Huh? What does that mean? Has he claimed to speak Javanese? More to the point, Jeralyn, I realize you have a preference, but laundering Karl Rove's attacks? Really?

    it's an indicator (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    of what's to come, and as I said last night, he has some on the list I hadn't heard of before.

    Well, this is what's coming (3.66 / 3) (#39)
    by dmk47 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    Well, this is what's coming if he's the nominee, in which case we ought to be figuring out how to fight that line. Likewise if Clinton's the nominee, it won't be all that hard to predict the attack line, and we should be figuring out how to combat it.

    Claimed to be a law professor but wasn't? Come on now. An assistant or associate professor isn't a full professor, but it's not dishonest to describe them as such without the qualifier. The difference between an assistant professor and a lecturer is tenure track vs. non-tenure track, and accordingly, greater research responsibilities for the former, greater teaching responsibilities for the latter. Nobody should be required to introduce a lecturer with an explanation of the academic professional system. Obama's students would have called him "Professor Obama," and there's absolutely nothing even slightly amiss with him calling himself a law professor. It's less credible than the attacks on Gore.

    I don't want to go through this point by point, but I'd think the operative assumption is that a Rove attack on a Democratic presidential candidate plays fast and loose with the truth.

    Also, what's with the claimed to speak "Indonesia" point? That can't literally be true. There's no such language.


    It is dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    academically and otherwise, to say to the public that you are -or let yourself be introduced as-  a Professor at the Univ. of Chicago (or wherever) if you aren't.
    The title carries its meaning.
    He is not/was not in the TT system nor did he hold an honorary degree or an honorary Professorship.
    He taught consitutional law. There are lots of people former politicians that teach
    (for ex. at Harvard) and neither themselves nor anyone else introduces them as "Professor".
    Students call "Professor" even to graduate students that are teaching assistants; but that doesn't make them 'Professor".  

    Ridiculous (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by dmk47 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:01 PM EST
    Absolute bull. Yes, clearly it would be improper for a graduate student to describe himself or herself as a professor. Being a graduate student, and having been an undergrad in courses taught by TAs, I can assure you I have never called a grad student "Professor _", nor observed anyone do so, nor requested that anyone address me as "Professor," nor been addressed that way, nor seen any of my classmates addressed as "Professor __". Perhaps there is a confused freshman or two who've made that mistake; it should and in most cases will quickly be corrected.

    If you're determined to split hairs, it would be improper for a junior faculty member to describe himself as "[so and so] is Professor of __ at __", because without an indefinite article, that phrase denotes full professorship, but there is absolutely nothing untoward about a junior faculty member, TT or not, describing himself or herself as a professor.

    It's not shocking that Karl Rove would attack on this point. It's disgraceful to see Democrats do it.


    Why is it disgraceful to attack Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    for lying on his resume, but not a problem to say Hillary is unqualified to be President because she made an incorrect statement about a landing in Bosnia over 10 years ago? Makes no sense.

    Apparently the UC law school (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    has a letter out in which they say that Obama was, in fact, a Professor. That's fine with me.
    It's more like the English system, where "Senior lecturer" really is the same thing as Professor.

    Yup, Press Release from U. Chicago (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    through Marc Ambinder.

    The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

    I had them (none / 0) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:25 PM EST
    all.  Nothing new.  

    OT... just walking my dog in the Redwood park near my home... three young men by the duck pond... Obama supporters, smoking some of that stuff some think should be legalized.  You had to be there. :)


    Some of it is pure nonsense (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:41:02 AM EST
    like the crap about claiming his parents met through Selma or the Life magazine thing.  But that certainly won't stop the right wing from using them since he's got a fair number of other, um, misstatements to his credit.  The thing about calling himself a professor when he was only a lecturer is particularly galling to me, since my dad was an actual professor and I know very well how huge those distinctions are in the academic world.

    I do find it fascinating that Rove couldn't get Wright's name right, particularly given the heavy emphasis Fox has put on Wright.


    He was a professor, (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    unless you want to dispute the account given by the University of Chicago posted above.

    You have to admit that UC is unusual in that (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    regard. I have never heard of a school in the US where 'lecturer' can connote 'professor'.

    Yes, he was (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    new post on this here.

    I really think you should start your (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    own blog, if you haven't already.  This one is Jeralyn's.

    credit (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    If Obama takes his advice, will he credit Karl Rove?
    Right... because I am sure that the Obama camp has not thought of this idea.

    Now I see Karl Rove's genius. (none / 0) (#1)
    by ajain on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM EST

    Genius? Oh please! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    I posted this suggestion on TL March 9th, suggesting Obama do this now. I said it would make him appear "presidential."

    This isn't genius. It's common sense.

    Because it won't bode well for Obama if he waits until June as Rove suggests. Not after he's thwarted every attempt to get this done when it needed doing, i.e., now.

    Plus, Obama's now alienated 28% of the Clinton vote who vow to oppose him if he gets the nomination.

    Obama waiting until June will be grandstanding, not grandiose.

    As far as the rest of what Rove says, in all due respect, just because he says it doesn't make it so. I'd like some references for verification.

    I'm a Hillary supporter. But I believe she should be president based on her merits. Not on Obama's flaws.


    It seems gutsy and leaderlike to do it today (none / 0) (#50)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:47:56 PM EST
    I think you're right, that doing this in June when we know the answer isn't gutsy.

    However, it may be viewed that way by people that think mccain is a straight talking maverick machine.

    I agree with you too about the verification regarding the other issues.


    What is that line from Macbeth? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    It's from Banquo, he tells Macbeth essentially that the witches tell you only a small amount of truth to get you to do alot.

    I think that's the case with Rove - There's some truth in what he is saying, but if Obama waits to say seat the delegates as is, the majority will not see it as leadership, but self-serving. At that point the fact that he is self-serving will be the narrative.


    Nice literary analogy -- thanks! (none / 0) (#129)
    by jerry on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    I'm so damn ignorant, thank you for bringing in the relevant Shakespeare.

    He really shouldn't be showing (none / 0) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    that on television, waving his genius around like that.

    Wouldnt that put Hillary ahead in the popular vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    I don't know but seems like it might...

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    But popular vote only matters as something for the superdelegates to consider. Obama taking the high road would outweigh that IMHO - they are just looking for an excuse to hand it to him anyway.

    Not if they only recognize the delegates. (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:42:14 PM EST
    I think that is what he plans to do.. but he is (none / 0) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:40:15 PM EST
    trying to get the guarantee of the remaining super delegates ... once he reaches the 50% threshold.. he will do exactly what Karl said.. he is as genius as the Karl himself.. I hope Karl does not take the credit once this happens.. since off late Reps have been taking credit for everything (good) that happens to any candidate.

    Rove's Obama exaggerations (none / 0) (#21)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
    seem factual to me - but only represent a smidgen that the GOP will deliver against Obama.

    But would you be surprised? (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM EST
    I swear it wouldn't surprised me. I can almost hear how they (Camp O) would frame it, ya know, in the name of winning in Nov/Unity. {rolls eyes}

    Rove giving advice to the Dems (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    Isn't that a little like Count Dracula giving advice to Lucy?

    Van Helsing, where are you?

    "Van Helsing" (none / 0) (#81)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:15:17 AM EST

    is probably doing another lecture on global warming.  ;)

    That was MY advice (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    to Obama yesterday!  Maybe Rove reads TalkLeft.

    Except I think he should say tomorrow, instead of waiting until June,  to seat and count FL and MI.  He could end this thing by May if he did so. The superdelegates would be putty in his hands.

    Of course I am a Hillary partisan, so I hope he does not take my (and Karls's) advice.

    That's so creepy... (none / 0) (#63)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    I said pretty much the same thing about Obama agreeing to seat the delegates on here maybe a month ago...  Does this mean Rove and I think alike?  If so, someone give me a dremel and an ice cream scoop, I'm getting rid of my brain...

    I don't know if it will help him as much now, but several weeks ago, I think he would have tied up the nomination just by taking the delegate hit but "standing up" for the voters of FL and MI.  A politician acting convincingly selfless is enough to make voters swoon.  He could have crushed Clinton if he had just come out with one of his nice speeches requesting the delegates be seated as is.  Even I might have been convinced.

    Now, since his campaign has fought so hard against seating those states, it's an issue that can really only hurt him, especially in the GE.  The GOP is going to take every opportunity to remind the FL/MI voters that Obama thought their voices shouldn't count.

    "barack? yes mr. rove? (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:09:28 AM EST
    now that you've become the democratic presidential nominee, i have just three words for you. yes mr. rove? barack, just three words: deer.in.headlights."

    That is ridiculous! (none / 0) (#69)
    by joc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:27:25 AM EST
    The only reason that a comment (to Rove's ravings) would be needed would be if Jeralyn thought her readers were such idiots that did not know who and what Rove was.

    Jeralyn didn't insult your intelligence, perhaps she should have.

    The comment you are replying to (3.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42:09 AM EST
    has been deleted. One more insult from DannyinLA and he's gone from here. Probably should have done it weeks ago.

    was just trying to rebutt (none / 0) (#79)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:25:12 AM EST
    that post.  was wondering why post kept failing.  

    Too bad you have to spend time playing referee.  Here is a link you can use that provides corroboration for Rove's accusations if you need it.



    Who cares about Rove? (none / 0) (#80)
    by bobalaska on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:38:48 AM EST
    This is the guy who lied about Iraq, lied about McCain, lied about his outing of Valerie Plame, etc etc etc etc.

    Why should anyone care about what he says now.  He should be in jail.   At least he should be ignoored.

    It is all they have left (none / 0) (#115)
    by learningcurve on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    What is mind boggling is that the claim that the Clinton camp is more aligned with Republicans than Democrats is fueled by the acceptance of this sort of support. It's as if they have come out of the closet.

    Why is Rove doing this? (none / 0) (#85)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    The right was very quiet about Obama, and their media, er, "supporters" were positively glowing when he was mentioned. Now, Rove is on the attack, publicly. He's messing with us. Public isn't his style. I'm guessing that he has decided that, strategically, it's time to go on the attack, and his public announcement is a message to his fans that they should join him. At this point, Obama is either going to be the Democratic candidate or the party is going to fracture itself by choosing Clinton. Either is a win for the neocons.

    Second... the charges here are partially true, and that needs to be taken into account by Obama's supporters. Rove has just started the ball rolling. In the coming weeks, if I'm right, there will be attacks from every direction about Obama's inexperience and tendency to exaggerate. Obama is going to be "vetted" as Clinton never could. This election can still be saved. If Obama runs as VP, he can become a familiar candidate to the public without facing the intense scrutiny placed on the President. He'll still be vetted, but the public simply doesn't care so much about having an inexperienced VP. Will he put aside his ego and allow it? If he doesn't, then he will lose the general election and his shot at every becoming President. Will Obama's supporters allow this? Has Clinton been so badly marked that she can't be elected?

    Rove always used half truths, (none / 0) (#112)
    by learningcurve on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    which are whole lies. It was his mastery, to weave a lie with a thread of truth. It is how he was so successful. Well, the fact based lies and unprosecuted felonies, before this is over expect him to offer advice in how to avoid consequence for crimes.  

    why should we care about rove's ravings? (none / 0) (#88)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:51:47 AM EST
    (and yes, i am functionally alliterative.)

    simply put, the man knows how to get people elected, which is more than can be said for most democratic political operatives (see: gore, al/kerry, john). clearly, i wouldn't take everything he says as gospel truth, but i would certainly pay attention to him. contrary to an earlier poster's assertion, mr. rove is hardly a "rube".

    while he may be out of the game for the moment, don't think for one second he isn't paying close attention. he and/or his accolytes will be very much involved in election 2008.

    ignoring mr. rove could well prove not merely foolish, but fatal.

    It is a new bottom (none / 0) (#108)
    by learningcurve on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    Democrats turning to Rove to help them smear Democrats. Make no mistake, this is not about issues to those who accept Rove's help, it is about personality and power.

    I think it's pretty clear (none / 0) (#89)
    by madamab on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    what the Republic attack on Barack would be. No listening to Rove necessary IMHO.

    #1: Take his strongest quality and use it against him. (Hillary has already done this: "Just words.")

    #2: Take his obvious weaknesses and use them against him. Inexperience and lack of judgment re: Wright and Reszko. (Hillary has done this too.)

    I am not judging Hillary for doing what she did - she is running against him after all, and has actually been much more gentle and supportive than the McCainStream Media will be once he is the nominee.

    If Obama thinks Hillary has been tough, I really hate to see what happens when the rightwingers start their engines.

    There's a difference between a harsh, but (none / 0) (#149)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    fair argument and a personal character attack.

    Suggesting that Obama isn't "experienced" enough to be president based on the length of his years of service at the national level is an argument, that voters may choose to agree or disagree with based on that candidate's public record and experience.

    Suggesting that Clinton doesn't have the "judgement" to be president, based on particular votes she has made during her time in the Senate is an argument, that one can accept or reject, based on her actual public performance.

    Suggesting that a politician's rhetoric isn't matched by his performance ("just words") is also an argument -- that the voter can look to the public record to determine if it is, convincingly or not, proved or disproved.

    Suggesting that another candidate has little concern for civil liberties based on a vote on flag burning or actions that appear to appease the powerful opposition to the detriment of the powerless is fair. Because it is based on the public record.

    Even suggesting that a rival's claim to a consistent anti-war position is a "fairy tale," based on the argued inconsistency of his own statements is fair -- because, once again, it is an argument based on what the candidate has done and said in the public arena as an office holder and a candidate. Not on who he is, personally, as a human being.

    You can't run a campaign without making such arguments. And the voters deserve to hear such arguments.

    The difference between character assassination politics and harsh, hard hitting campaign arguments is that the first is intended to create an unlikeable persona for the candidate -- to make you dislike and distrust them personally ("cold" "calculating" "dishonest" "elitist" "serial liar") separate from their public record -- while the other puts the focus where it should be; on their public record and demonstrated performance.


    If one is going to fend off attacks, (none / 0) (#111)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    it helps if one has an inkling of what they are going to be. Since Rove is a major player for the GOP, parsing his comments and looking to see what weaknesses in our candidates he plans to exploit is simply good preparation. Anyone who ignores Rove does so at their peril. He may be a snake in a slime suit, but he is still the power behind the GOP campaigns, and he gets down and dirty with no trouble at all. So, discussing his attacks and trying to defuse them is an essential part of any campaign that he is involved in. Surely you realize that by now???? Or perhaps you think campaigns are just lovely tea parties where everyone dresses up nicely and chats civilly to each other. Oh, wouldn't that be nice!!!

    Sigh.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    Bill DIDN'T go on Rush. He answered questions that were then packaged as an "interview" by a radio personality who was subbing for Rush.  

    Obama had an interview with the Pittsburgh Trib Review (Scaife) before Hillary Clinton did. They are both running in Pennsylvania,so why should it be some horrible crime that they are interviewed by a major Pittsburgh paper. Oh, excuse me,its only a horrible crime when Hillary Clinton does it. When Obama does it, no problem,right?

    Likewise, Obama's been interviewed on Fox as well.

    So why the double standard?


    The truth of these contentions doesn't matter (none / 0) (#137)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    ...they fit the story the Republicans have been telling, about Democrats in general, with, unfortunately, some Democratic participation, for close to 3 decades.

    There are plenty of Americans who believe John Kerry's war injuries were self-inflicted, that Al Gore is a serial liar, and that there was something dishonest or unethical (and power mad) about Hillary Clinton's good luck in the futures market.

    Those kind of perceptions aren't based in reason. They are based in repetition.

    These perceptions hurt the party in general, whether or not the lead to a particular candidates defeat.  

    wow.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by myed2x on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    this place is getting a little too much even for my broad taste....you guys are now referencing Rove, few weeks ago it was Althouse...Rove is merely helping the GOP, just like most of you are doing without even realizing it, Rove wins again.

    So now Talk "Left" (none / 0) (#142)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:33:49 PM EST
    ...is using its bandwidth to broadcast without irony or comment talking points from Karl Rove, about the frontrunner for the Dem nomination. And this is not from BTD, who I thought had gone further 'round the bend, but from Jeralyn.

    I've read this blog off and on for years for progressive insight into criminal justice.  I've kept checking in while it has devolved into "Obamasuxxx!" 24/7, because I try to stay open to a range of informed opinion, and I was hoping to enjoy the moment when you came to your senses and got behind the progressive standard-bearer.  I even started to comment, for the first time ever, making a couple of ineloquent pleas to tone down the intraparty fratricide.

    But this is too much.  I'm not going to give the likes of Karl Rove even the tiniest implicit validation  by reading a blog that regurgitates his talking points.  I'm outta here.

    Please do get a grip and try to remember what's really important.  I'll stop by in the Fall to see if some semblance of sanity has returned.

    In the meantime, if Hillary does come back to pull out the nomination, you can be damn sure I'll vote for her.

    Have you ever protested (none / 0) (#143)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    when the Obama campaign regurgitated Rovian and Republican talking points against the Clintons?

    Democrats need to understand that these kind of personal character attacks are a "one size fits all (Democrats)" effort to diminish the party BRAND and limit party identification and start getting outraged WHENEVER this sort of thing is being pushed  -- even when it is their candidate's rival who is under attack, or their candidate that is doing the pushing.


    First, (none / 0) (#144)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    Talkleft is not, AFAIK, an official organ of the Clinton campaign so your analogy is flawed.

    Second, I would indeed protest if I saw the Obama campaign quoting Rove vs Clinton.  Can you link me to an example of them doing this?  Didn't think so.

    This poisoned Rove BS goes beyond anything I've seen coming from Obama officially, or even his mainstream supporters, vs Clinton.  It's not just a question of spin; every claim is objectively false.  The University of Chicago has already stated that Obama is, in fact, entitled to claim he was a professor.  Additionally (the following is reposted from another thread where they didn't really belong, and I expect will be deleted):

    Obama never credited the Selma march with his parents' getting together; he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole which began in the 50s.  See snopes.com > politics > obama > Say what?

    FWIW, the editorial that started the Selma/birthdate controversy also cited Al Gore's "claim" that he invented the internet.  That's the kind of source progressives should be lending creidibility! :/

    Obama does speak Bahasa, one of the primary languages of Indonesia which he learned while living there.  The Indonesian ambassador to the US has remarked on his competence.

    Obama did work on asbestos issues in public housing, and did not attempt to claim an exaggerted role.  See here for a documented refutation of this attack:

    And now I really am out.


    Have you seen any Obama campaign materials? (none / 0) (#145)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    What do you think "will do or say anything" to get elected is? That's a direct quote from an Obama campaign ad that Obama appears in personally and "approves."

    But perhaps you think every personal smear against Clinton's character is "true?" -- and not just a politically advantageous talking point.

    After all, obviously, a woman who has devoted 35 years to public service of one sort or another -- mostly involved with issues pertaining to the most vulnerable -- children, the legally defenseless, the ill -- is a "monster" of calculation and evil.


    @esmense (none / 0) (#148)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    "Will say anything" is harsh talk, but it's not a quote from Karl Rove.

    And considering Clinton's well-documented fabulism on S-CHIP, NAFTA, her roles in No. Ireland and Bosnia, her claim that "FL and MI were decided fairly," and etc....well, what won't she say?  Surely I suppose, she play to the redneck vote by dissing Obama's pastor based on right-wing snips of his sermons that had already been debunked as taken out of context....oh, wait.  Surely her campaign wouldn't play up Obama's admission of youthful drug use to suggest he might have been dealing....damn, they went there too.

    When the Obamanauts start talking about Filegate and the Clinton-Foster cocaine connection, the pot and the kettle will be a matched set.


    You've really drank the Republican (none / 0) (#150)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    Kool Aid.

    Just to be clear... (none / 0) (#154)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    The winger version of Filegate and the Arkansas Cocaine connection are absurd conspiracy theories, and I reject them out of hand....just like you, Jeralyn and the TL community should steer well clear of Rove's lies about Obama.

    I have never criticized Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    or given credence to these absurdities. What I have criticized are these absurdities, and politics that is aimed at creating, through false or disingenuous (and mostly unprovable assertions) dislike and distrust of an opponent in terms of his politics rather than forthrightly criticising his/her public record and actions.  

    My point is that these absurd charges, and the character defects they are suppose to reveal, have been par for the course over many election cycles and are similar to the kind of absurd charges, supposedly revealing of the very same defects, made against every Democrat in recent years; both Clintons, Gore, Dean, Kerry and now Obama.

    But, of course, in the mind of an Obama supporter, simply suggesting that Clinton may be a victim of this kind of nonsense, too, and that she may NOT be the cold, power mad, calculating, evil monster of the Right Wing's, and, too often now the Obama Wing of the Democratic party's, feverish imagination, IS a "Nixonian" attack, of the vilest sort, on Obama himself.



    My apologies (none / 0) (#156)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:57:52 PM EST
    Rereading your first reply to me I see that I've been out of bounds.  At first, still seething at Jeralyn's water-carrying for Rove, I just read your first line and went off on another rant.  My loss as your second para makes a lot of sense, as does your call in the last post for Dems to reject these kind of character-based attacks.

    So, I'm sure you'll join me in complaining whenever progressive bloggers lend their megaphones to Karl Rove.