I hate to give Karl Rove credit
And he may be in error on a point or two, but his analysis of the top two contenders on the Democratic side is the best and most thorough I’ve seen.
After his resignation, Richard Nixon was the smartest handicapper of presidential races while he lived. I didn’t like him, but I learned to listen to him. Had more Dem candidates listened, we would have won a few more.
Rove and Bill Clinton have extraordinarily high aptitudes at the art of campaigning. Rove’s detail here can be used by both Obama and Clinton. Unfortunately, there’s not much Edwards can glean from this to use. He’ll have to use what he can and take a few more initiatives and risks on his own if he’s to demonstrate that no Pope is infallible. 2006 already proved Rove’s not as smart as Nixon. But he’s also no Dan Quayle.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am
You’re right, that’s a very interesting analysis on the surface. But with Rove you always have to bear in mind he’s got other motives in play as well; I can’t cite poll numbers but I’d think Obama would be very hard to beat in the general election, and Rove may be doing all he can to avoid that. Were there points for Obama he short-shrifted on purpose to try to get the opponent he prefers?
January 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I hate to give Rove credit for anything too ….
So I don’t.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Of course Rove has other motives. The main one, excluding Edwards. They don’t want anyone that can contend in any Southern state except Florida.
Nixon was more transparent. He’d say: “Dukakis needs to do this. Bush needs to do that.” And inevitably, Bush would heed his advice and Dukakis wouldn’t.
Rove wants both of the top two Dems to stay in the game through June, to bleed their funds. But that doesn’t negate his analysis of what’s been working for each of them.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Sometimes our sworn enemies know us better than we do ourselves.