No, really, it's a trap.
I spent the night wondering just what the angle was here, and it's sure not to help you, or Democrats, or dare I say, it America.
Now that Mr. Bush's time is winding down, and Mr. Rove can't pull any rabbits out his hat, here he is, purporting to tell you how to get elected.
No. He's a hatchet man for the right, and this article doesn't change that.He's introducing memes and concepts that can only hurt you and the Democrats. Hillarycare? Seriously? The big stink around that time was that her meetings were seeeekrit, and benefitted the healthcare industry.
Sound like anybody else in high office holding secret meetings that benefited a huge industry?
This is not about Hillarycare, a lot of the proposals weren't that bad, and some of them were implemented anyway (organizations getting together to form bargaining blocs, unless of course prevented by law - Medicare part D, anyone?) This is about promoting infighting that's distracting and worthless. He's the pig, and he loves it. You don't need it. America doesn't need it.
Then three paragraphs of "negative sells". It may sell but it doesn't govern. I remember watching Mr. Rove or one of his Imperial Army clones on C-SPAN after the 2000 elections. Someone hosted a seminar on "how we won the election" and the message was "we sold a better product. We showed Americans how our guy could help them." Then he compared and contrasted two cellphone commercials. One was the mom with three kids who begged her not to go into work today because all they'd do is watch TV with the babysitter. That she had a critical meeting at work, which fed those kids was apparently not something she could just tell them, so they all went to the beach and she had her meeting by cellphone. Nice happy ending.
To "compare and contrast" he put up the "can you hear me now?" guy. Irritating as hell, and the point was that selling positively wins elections.
Two things - the "mom" commercial wasn't about positive anything, it was about making mom guilty and wrong no matter what she did, and the message was "give in to what you want, don't think about consequences".
Also, they don't show that commercial anymore. "Can you hear me now?" guy still has a job. Their message was about stability, reliability, consistency, and more recently, faithfulness.
So Mrs. Clinton campaigned against welfare deform. Good for her. It was a bad idea, still is a bad idea, and it shows that she can think her own thoughts and wasn't being used as a pawn to get people to do what the hubby wanted, no matter how wrong. Unlike some other First Ladies. She stood by her man on personal matters*, but was independent otherwise.
What's next? Oh, yes "gently belittle". No, don't "attack" the poor woman, "gently belittle". Get over it, she's a big girl, attack. She'll attack you back. You're a big boy. Handle it. Good Lord.
And besides that, the blogosphere's doing that for you anyway. Why bother?
Now I quote: "Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband."
I have nothing to say about Mr. Rove's woman issues. Calling Mr. Clinton charming isn't lying, it's just good policy not to piss off Mr. Bush Sr, and more importantly, Mrs. Bush, Sr. who reportedly loves Mr. C. like a son.
See what I mean, there are enough attacks already. Don't fall into the trap. Take the good stuff (be positive, clear about what you believe, explain the change you represent) and leave the rest behind as so much chaff. Just because he calls you "weak" if you don't win in Iowa doesn't mean he's giving you good advice.
It's not sound advice, and it's not even advice that sounds good.
DISCLAIMER: I've got nothing against Obama or Clinton personally, but I don't endorse either for the Job. I'm for Richardson/Edwards. I just can't let this go by.
--------------------------------
*and before you start on that, I don't give a good goddamn what you think, it was their business.
