Karl Rove Memo to Barack Obama?
I find this memo from former Bush advisor, Karl Rove, to presidential candidate, Barack Obama, very odd, but fascinating at the same time. Here’s an excerpt from the Financial Times article:
Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.
The good news is you have again got “the buzz”. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.
Read the rest, it’s fascinating: Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race.
UPDATE: Is Obama already heeding Rove’s advice?
Looks like the good Senator from Illinois just launched a website called “Hillary Attacks”.
An excerpt:
Her lead in the polls shrinks, Senator Clinton's flagging campaign grows more desperate each day. This web site will chronicle and rebut the increasingly desperate attacks and accusations being produced by the Clinton campaign.
According to Senator Obama:
Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats: 23
Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise: 19
Watching two democrats have a go at one another, priceless.
Update: Robert Reich jumps into the fray
In his post, Why is HRC stooping So Low?
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa — especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.
It annoys me that “progressives” think a portion of our hard-earned money is rightfully theirs to use for progressive tax solutions. Translation: We screwed up, so you taxpayers can hand over more money to fix it…
In any case, Reich criticizes Hillary for her attack strategy. I would ask, why is Mr. Reich so concerned about the character assassination strategy? It’s what liberals have perfected and continue to use in every situation where the facts just aren’t on their side. It’s part of the Democratic play book. I guess maybe he just wants HRC to save it for the Republican nominee.