The Rovian Legacy? Hillary's Campaign?


With the demise of Karl Rove -- "Bush's Brain" it's wondered whether his methods have fallen into disrepute. It is certain that Karl Rove is a brilliant political strategist who knows how to politicize everything. He keeps on message no matter what, even if he's not really of that persuasion. So if Rove's legacy is to find an heir, who will pick up the mantle?


It seems that the likely candidate is Hillary Clinton, who like Rove's Bush campaigns stays on message, keeps control of the message, and attacks quickly. Although the ideology is different, the Clintons and Rove seem to have a mutual admiration for each other. Peter Baker writes:

And why not? [John] Harris and [Mark] Halperin wrote last year that Rove and the Clintons shared some of the same understandings of how politics work, and the two authors even crafted a list they titled "What Hillary Clinton and Karl Rove Know About the Way to Win the White House in 2008." Clinton, they wrote, has "borrowed some strategies" from Rove for dealing with the news media, enemies and anticipated attacks. "Like Karl Rove," they wrote, "Hillary Clinton knows that playing offense is better than playing defense. . . . Hillary Clinton obviously dislikes Bush's policy goals, but she appreciates some of the methods he has used to achieve them."


I think that the Clintons are, like Rove, political wonks. They understand how to play the political game and do it well. They can be divisive -- as Rove's Bush has proven himself to be -- but they know how to win. But this is exactly why I'm leery of Hillary as a candidate and as President. I think she has great skills and probably will make for an excellent president. She's experienced and knows the inside of the White House better than any other candidate, but it's quite possible that this very experience could provide the wrong lessons for the nation at this time. I think there's another way to govern than "divide and conquer."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Oh please now you're trying to make Hilary a boogieman.

To be president of the United States you need to be tough, smart and focus. It will take a strong person with all these abilities to dig us out of the mess King George put this country in.

What I find interesting is that people seem more upset at how great Hilary is doing. It's seem like Hilary is getting slam for her experience and competence and I don't understand that.
Robert Cornwall said…
I'm not making Hillary a bogieman. I think she stands to make a great president -- if she's not learned the wrong lessons. What the Rovian Bush has done is politicize governance in a way not seen before -- I'm hoping that Hillary hasn't learned that lesson.
Mystical Seeker said…
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances whatsoever.

Let's not forget that this is someone who was at one time one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's war in Iraq. She has refused to apologize for having voted for the war, and now all she does is lie or change the subject when this is brought up. The New York Times Sunday Magazine had a long story a few months ago that detailed her dishonesty on this subject.

Example: she claimed that she didn't have all the information at her disposal in 2002 (a lie--she simply didn't bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate that at least one fellow Senator did read and cited as a reason for opposing the war. When asked later about whether she had read this document, she refused to directly answer the question.) She also claimed that she only supported Bush going to war if certain conditions were met--and yet voted against Carl Levin's amendment that would have imposed just the conditions the she claimed that she wanted.

In the single most important moral issue of the last decade, she was on the wrong side of history, and now she is lying about it. I was out there on the streets protesting against this bloody, immoral act of aggression--and she was in favor of it. Oh sure, it is easy to be against the war now. But if the war had gone smoothly, she'd be patting herself on the back now for having supported it. The test of moral character is whether you can oppose a war that everyone thinks will be a "cake walk."

Never, never, never will I support Hillary Clinton for President. And in case anyone thinks that she will take on Big Business, let us remember that she was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart for many years. As far as I am concerned, she is simply another corporate stooge and supporter of imperalism and war.
I'd like to side with Mystical Seeker. But the Bush years have been so bad that I have learned that sometimes even a little improvement is worthwhile. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for her over the GOP nominee because I can't stand any of them.

But it will be hard because I do not think Hillary is enough of a change. Her differences with the current regime are of degree--we need differences of kind.

The economic and foreign policies of Bill Clinton paved the way for some of the worst aspects of the Bush admin. I see no prospect of that changing under Hillary. She will remain committed to the NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO mess, will continue to weaken labor and consumer advocates, will do nothing to get us universal healthcare or universal quality education. Her environmental policies will be weak and her military spending strong--and she has already threatened Iran.

I want a different nominee.
Robert Cornwall said…
What we need, and Hillary doesn't provide it, is change! Now, you all know who I'm for, but the GOP candidates will be more of the same and Hillary while not in their camp is not going to make a lot of changes.

So, somewhere -- Barack or someone else will have to be that agent of change.

Popular Posts