Rove Hatred Could Cost Dems In '08

Karl Rove is at it again, and I love it. Taking a page right from his 2004 championship playbook, the “Boy Genius” began spinning a web of treachery during his recent Hillary bashing tour, a web of treachery that if left unchecked could cost the Democrats the White House in 2008.

As I watch the beginning stages of Rove’s plan for 2008 unfold, I have to wonder: are Democrats really this stupid? With exactly one year until the Democratic National Convention, I will gleefully say that the answer appears to be yes. To understand the present state of Democratic idiocy, it is important to revisit 2004.

For four years, I have been arguing that if Democrats had selected Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina on “Super Tuesday” instead of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, they would have won the presidency. Democrats in 2004 were shortsighted because they picked who they wanted to win, rather than who could actually win. Of course as a conservative, Democrats have been informing me ever since that I am the one who is in fact myopic.

Well Democrats, say hello to former Rove associate and lieutenant Matthew Dowd. According to Peter Wallsten in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, Mr. Dowd, during a post-mortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University held one month after that election, confirmed my suspicion.

For Republican strategists, Edwards was seen as the real threat to Bush 43 because of “his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message.” Therefore, to make sure Edwards did not receive the Democratic nomination, they chose to attack Kerry. By attacking Kerry, Rove and his cronies rightfully believed that Democrats would rally around him and make him the party’s nominee. Obviously, Rove and company were right on the money in 2004.

Now the question becomes, why attack Senator Clinton? Three reasons come to mind.

First, by attacking Sen. Clinton, Rove is hoping that Democratic hatred for him will translate into a Clinton nomination in much the same fashion it did for Kerry in 2004. As it currently stands, Democrats certainly appear to be taking the bait.

Second, Sen. Clinton has chinks in her armor that Republicans can exploit. As Mr. Rove recently noted, “‘[Clinton] enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll.’”

Finally, as Republicans scurry to reinvent themselves for 2008, Rove rightfully knows that attacking Sen. Obama and Citizen Edwards will only strengthen their respective candidacies to the detriment of Republicans. Let us remember that Obama did not assume office until after Iraq was voted on, and until the picture in Iraq becomes clearer, this is not a road that Republicans want to travel down at this juncture. With regard to Edwards, he is dangerous to any potential Republican candidate because he is a Southerner who touts a populist message, no matter how “nutty” that message may appear at times.

Will a Clinton nomination alone secure a Republican victory in 2008? Of course not, but it is a step in the right direction. Republicans still have a lot of reinventing to do to overcome their present quagmire. They have to hope that Iraq takes a turn for the better, they have to sever ties to current Republican congressional members embedded in scandal, President Bush has to prove that he is tough on bills containing earmarks and finally, Republicans have to hope that the nation’s disgust for Congress continues to outdistance its disgust for Bush 43. But if Republicans can overcome these obstacles, then the web that Mr. Rove started spinning this past week could translate into a Republican presidential victory in 2008.