But Rove added that the “hard-driving” Clinton will easily vanquish Democratic primary rivals like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who are merely “preening for the vice presidential slot.”
Ok here is what I'd like to call Ignorance of History
in 1980 Jimmy "Peanut man" Carter was running from the left end of his party and lost but we'll leave jimmy on the side because he is going to prove my point later.
In 1984 we got us some Walter Mondale that was shades of Carter in 80. In 1988 we got us some Michael Dukakis
what did we get in 1992 Bill "New Democrat" Clinton.
Ok so lets go back to 1968
Much like Jimmy in 76 the scion of the unpopular Democratic administration lost
in 72 we get Whacky McGovern.
what do we get in 76 a more moderate outsider Jimmy Carter.
Back further you say? Why sure
in 52 Democrats lose from FDR exhaustion
they try to repeat the same thing in 56
in 1960 we have John "new blood" kennedy who was not a pure FDR clone.
So what we have (typically) Is the democrats putting up the wrong canidate for a series of elections then getting smart.
Now while 1960 was Richard nixon's to lose, 1976 was the Democrats to lose and they pushed forward an outsider. 1992 was an impossible task but the Democrats had retooled and put forward the right canidate.
Dismissing Hillary implies the Democrats don't (in the words of Glen Beck) "Get It" and while I can make the case that right now they don't "Get It" i sure as heck can't make that case for 2008.
However I am glad to see once again proof I seem to be more politically savy then the President
“She is a smart person, and obviously has got a lot of experience,” the president said in an exclusive interview for the book STRATEGERY, which is being published Monday. “It is helpful, to a certain extent, to have seen the presidency and presidential campaigns firsthand.”
Oh.... So then you want to tell us about the wonders of the Gary Hart administration? Or the Wonders of the John Kerry administration
oh those people who had either directly (Gary hart) or through campaign managment (John Kerry) seen the nuts and bolts of Presidential campaigns didn't do well? Oh how about Joe Lieberman's win in the 2004 Presidential primary....Oh wait that didn't happen. Well maybe we can talk about the Nixon and Gore administrations...Oh wait none of those either.
But she has experience of..being a Senator for Six years and voting the Party line on pretty much every issue... good experience there. Oh and being opposed to the issues and campaign strategy style that got her husband elected President.
But more of my making fun of Karl Rove....
“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.”
so she is the dominant fundraiser.......and that means...oh yeah NOTHING.
I could argue that Ted Kennedy is the dominant player because of his influence on Party positions in the Senate but Jabba the Kennedy isn't going to be running. Just because some one is the cash register that doesn't mean they will win. if thats the case Howard Dean would have surged to victory in 04...
I agree with Rove's pick on the 06 elections and *IF* Hillary proves me wrong and wins the nod in 08 there is no way she'll be sitting in the West Wing in 09