The Wall Street Journal-20080116-Rove Provokes Sharp Responses on Election
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080116
Rove Provokes Sharp Responses on Election
Referring to the op-ed "Why Hillary Won" (Jan. 10), one has to wonder what Karl Rove's motive was when he wrote the piece? The first third of his article does refer to his observations as to why Sen. Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. However, two thirds of the article appears to be his instructions to the Clinton campaign as to how to further attack Sen. Barack Obama.
Could the reason for these instructions be that as an architect of Republican politics Mr. Rove, as well as other Republicans, would prefer to have the fight against Mrs. Clinton rather than Mr. Obama?
I do not think Mr. Rove needs to instruct President Clinton in attacking Mr. Obama. In fact it is unseemly and almost embarrassing that our past president and a leader of the Democratic Party has been so venomous in his attacks against a possible nomination from his own party even if one of the candidates is his wife. Loyalty is admirable but then so is dignity.
Carol J. Moola
Santa Fe, N.M.
---
Mr. Rove's criticism of Sen. Obama comes as no surprise. Mr. Obama is the Democratic candidate the Republicans fear the most.
Craig Davis
Washington, Iowa
---
Democrats get out the caution flags when Karl Rove chooses sides between the two leading contenders. Mr. Rove's sharp critique of Sen. Obama collects old excerpts from the Clinton campaign manual: ". . . saying one thing and doing another;" ". . . ducking major issues"; "his rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air." Not to say Mr. Rove can't be original, however: "Mr. Obama comes across as a vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson."
Mr. Rove supports his case of Mr. Obama's weakness, pointing out he has not taken the clear opportunity to "go negative" on the Clinton record. Republican strategists a la Mr. Rove would like nothing more than to see the Democrats emerge from their convention deeply divided after another bloody succession of primaries.
Mr. Rove's rather strident argument is perhaps an indication of which of the Democrat contenders they would less like to face in the general election. Mr. Obama's call to our deeply-divided nation to join an effort to find new non-partisan solutions and directions, ones in which we feel our voice has been heard, is much more compelling than what the Republicans seem to have to offer so far -- more wedge issues and fear.
Perhaps Mr. Obama must, as he did at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day event, discreetly and artfully, keep reminding voters of the questionable Clinton legacy. Without a doubt, should Mrs. Clinton become the Democrat nominee, Republicans will not hesitate to ruthlessly bring up Whitewater, the Rose law firm, questionable cattle deals, etc.
Mr. Rove might want us to think he's helping us Democrats in selecting the better candidate. As my dear mother used to say to me, when her child tried once again to pull the wool over her eyes, "Son, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night!"
Arthur Halbardier
Eden Prairie, Minn.
