Monday, February 27, 2006

Rove's Prognostication Manipulation

From Drudge, re a new book called Strategery:

Rove agreed in a question-and-answer session in his West Wing office for STRATEGERY, which is based on exclusive, lengthy interviews with Bush, Cheney and their top advisers. The third in a series of NEW YORK TIMES bestsellers chronicling this unlikely yet historic presidency, STRATEGERY is the most comprehensive, behind-the-scenes account of Bush’s narrow reelection and the tumultuous 14 months that followed.

“She is the dominant player on their side of the slate,” Rove said of Clinton. “Anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves.”


Okay, hear me now and believe me later. Hillary Clinton CANNOT be the Democratic nominee for President. It can't happen, even if Rove The Oracle says it will. My personal opinion is that Rove is sowing the seeds of her candidacy because he'd like nothing more than to see her run.

For the love of God--and this country--Hillary simply cannot and must not be the Democratic nominee for President. It's political suicide to the tune of a 51% margin who said they wouldn't vote for her in a recent poll.

Surely we can do better than this.

3 comments:

Vigilante said...

We have no reason to believe Rove, E.

But before you put all credence in the polls, you have to consider where the money is. Clinton has $17 million right now, and she'll only use a fraction of that to get re-elected to the Senate. That kind of money can change polls.

She's not close to being my favorite either, but America having a leader will be an improvement over its current misleader.

A vast improvement.

Raine said...

I beg to differ.

Why don't you run, E? Surely there's got to be someone who can represent the plebs better than fat cats in suits and multi-million dollar airheads?

E said...

The Dem party needs to get is sh*t together. All we have is our anti-Bush, pro-leftie agenda, without any original, realistic ideas or alternatives to Bush. Why are we not hammering Bush's neocon ideology? How can a neocon who believes in the limited power of the government to affect change have actually believed that our government could effect change in a nation half a world away without a worst-case-scenario plan for making it work? Why are we not hammering the GOP on points like this? Because we have no plan, no ideology of our own; we are simply anti-Bush, which is not a real vote-getter as Kerry found out.

We've gotta get it together or we will lose again--and deservedly so. My man James Carville agrees with me, and he is the authority as far as I'm concerned.