‘I’m your girl,’ the Sequel

It took Obama quite a while to figure out a come back to this line when Clinton
first said it, though people sure talked about it a lot.

“For 15 years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I’ve come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl.” – Hillary Clinton

No one had a come back for Karl Rove’s parting gift to camp Clinton either.

“I feel so lucky that I am now giving them such heartburn,” – Hillary Clinton.

But Clinton went one step further yesterday.

CLINTON: Well, I don’t think Karl Rove’s going to endorse me. That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he’s so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because… (LAUGHTER) … we know how to win. I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here. I’ve taken them on and we’ve beaten them. And I’m very excited about my campaign. I had 18 wonderful years in Arkansas. I’ll be there tomorrow, where the governor will be endorsing me. I’ve had wonderful experiences in upstate New York, where many of the people who voted for me had never voted for a Democrat before. And you know, the idea that you’re going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they’re through with you, I think, is just missing what’s been going on in American politics for the last 20 years.

Obama and Edwards remain stuck behind Clinton for a reason, even as they both
get better at their comebacks. However, Obama’s
kumbaya, which I’ve talked about for months is just not cutting it, which
is why he finally started using sharper rhetoric against Clinton. Reader
Dan chimed in over the weekend and said it all. Obama was handed a golden
opportunity to create his own Rove moment. He should have ripped Sean Hannity’s
head off for the swiftboating that went on after Obama’s Afghanistan comment.
It was a chance for him to pick a fight with vaunted wingnut radio and even Fox,
like Clinton did with Rove. As for Edwards, he needs more than the lobbyist
line, which isn’t going to be enough for him. Frankly, I think he should go
after Congress over Iraq. It’s got a lot more passion to reach into voters hearts than lobbying. It’s always dangerous and difficult to go after your own, but he can certainly point the blame at the Republicans holding out. But Edwards was good yesterday, though he needs to lose the “here’s what I believe” line. It makes him sound weak, because obviously if you’re saying something you believe it. He needs sharp, crisp & hard declaratives.

One thing you heard more than once during the debate was “Joe is right” when talking about Iraq. Beats the hell out of saying Richardson is right, because he’s not, though even the governor had a good day yesterday. Chris Dodd stood out too.

Meanwhile, Clinton just keeps amping up her rhetoric, compliments of boy genius
Karl Rove. Bush’s brain screwed up when he served up the sweetest soft
ball Clinton could hope for when he dished election dirt with Rush. Evidently
Karl can’t help himself, proving MJ
Rosenberg’s point in quick order. However, now Clinton’s even got an answer
for her negatives, which is not only beautiful but has plenty of truth to it.
When wingnuts like Sean Hannity, Rush and many others, along with the late Rev.
Falwell go after you, adding to this mix the Christian broadcasting megaphone,
not to mention their think tanks and all of their little right-wing minions,
it’s hard to keep your positive vibe halo.

However, there’s
another view that has some history to it.

The decision to focus on the New York senator to the exclusion of other potentially formidable Democratic standard-bearers such as Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois offered a rare glimpse into a world where things are not always what they seem — the world of modern-day electioneering, whose denizens often prefer going from A to B by way of Z. In this case, Rove’s weeklong broadside against Clinton — which he is expected to repeat in multiple appearances on television talk shows today — looks suspiciously like an exercise in reverse psychology that his team employed three years ago when it was preparing for President Bush’s reelection bid. The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a postmortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush’s opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush’s reelection. But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove’s team opened fire at Kerry. … .. Clinton may be a target of Rove’s reverse psychology In a tactic from the ’04 Bush-Kerry match-up, the strategist could be trying to divert attention away from a more formidable Democrat.

Be careful what you wish for.