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.
Posted on:
December 2, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Domestic Politics, Elections 2008, Hillary Watch . •
No Comments • .
This is part of a headline from an article appearing on Guardian’s web site:
Fraud, intimidation and bribery as Putin prepares for victory
State workers forced to vote in effort to rig result for president.
The Kremlin is planning to rig the results of Russia’s parliamentary elections on Sunday by forcing millions of public sector workers across the country to vote, the Guardian has learned.
Local administration officials have called in thousands of staff on their day off in an attempt to engineer a massive and inflated victory for President Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party. Voters are being pressured to vote for United Russia or risk losing their jobs, their accommodation or bonuses, the Guardian has been told in numerous interviews with byudzhetniki (public sector workers), students and ordinary citizens.
Doctors, teachers, university deans, students and even workers at psychiatric clinics have been warned they have to vote. Failure to do so will entail serious consequences, they have been told.
However, I thought the headline should have read:
Fraud, intimidation and bribery as Putin Hillary Clinton prepares for victory…
Read more: Fraud, intimidation and bribery as Putin prepares for victory.
Posted on:
November 29, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Elections 2008, Hillary Watch, International . •
No Comments • .
More lying from the Clinton camp:
UPDATE: Allahpundit exposes the BS details over at HotAir.com.
Posted on:
November 28, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Elections 2008, Hillary Watch, Videos . •
No Comments • .
This kind of relates to my previous posts, Hillary Clinton and Tough Questions part one and part two. Michelle Malkin has once again produced a terrific video roundup of how liberal activists were sold to the public as “undecided voters” during the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN.
Watch the video and try to maintain a straight-face.
Posted on:
November 21, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Elections 2008, Hillary Watch, Videos . •
No Comments • .
I wrote about this earlier. Now we have video evidence:
I seem to recall Hillary claiming she had no first-hand knowledge of planted questions. How stupid does she think we are? The answers to a list of pre-approved questions need to be rehearsed. So how can Mrs. Clinton possibly expect us to believe she didn't know about the questions beforehand?
I pray to God (yep, sorry liberals), that this woman is never elected President.
UPDATE: Developing story from the Drudge Report:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux… Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign…
Posted on:
November 13, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Elections 2008, Hillary Watch, Videos . •
No Comments • .
This post will probably be the first in a series of posts related to Hillary Clinton receiving few, if any, tough questions from journalists and citizens alike.
This from TheHill.com:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.
Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks.
Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.
"I wouldn’t say she lost her cool," one caller said. "But I would say she lost her footing."
I wonder why? Could it be that she's not qualified to be President?
Posted on:
November 1, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Domestic Politics, Elections 2008, Hillary Watch . •
No Comments • .
