Taylor Marsh says a lot in this post regarding Karl Rove's remarks on Hillary's 'negatives' and 'electability.' And she takes on the press too.
Here's a snippet:
Seen any coverage at all about what happened in the 1990s and how the wingnut juggernaut attacked Clinton and her husband his entire presidency all the way to impeachment, starting with the '92 campaign, which continues on Fox "News" today, compliments of Sean Hannity and Dick let me suck your toes Morris?
Seen any coverage about what negative publicity for 20 years can do to a person, especially a woman who not only is the first First Lady senator, but the most investigated woman on the political landscape who just happens to be the first viable female candidate to run for the presidency in American history? How would Mr. Obama do after 20 years of all those swiftboating general election Republican operatives teeing off on that middle name nonsense, or the madrassa slur started by Fox? There's his minister, but also the nasty nugget about Malcolm X that was floated by Politico.com's Mike Allen. Can Obama fight back and win against wingnut thugs? Look at what the noise of the corporate hack pack, plus Fox and O'Reilly have done to Edwards over a ridiculous haircut. What would 20 years of that crap, plus the latest financial nonsense look like? Tune in to Fox "News" because they're going at Edwards yet again. These guys destroyed Kerry and they did it in three months.
Seen any coverage about Ken Starr targeting the Clinton's with our tax dollars then releasing a pornographic report on the Internet?
Clinton's not only standing, but she's a senator from the great state of New York, not to mention running for president. She beat them all. Rove knows it and is worried, because he's on a legacy tour, Bush's legacy that is and he's got to plant the seeds, because a Clinton presidency would obliterate his boy Bush, and Rove knows it.
But what's at the bottom of the press grabbing on to Karl Rove's rhetorical turds? A couple of things, as far as I can tell so far, but clearly Clinton's performance since March has delivered a collective shock wave across the press landscape. She's not strident! She's articulate! She's not the dragon lady of wingnut lore! And oh my gosh, maybe she doesn't need Bill to make her case after all (though he's certainly a huge plus). And she's actually working for votes? Nah. Fuhgettaboutit.
Clinton is surprising a lot of people with her campaign. No one was more surprised than me when I saw her at the health care forum earlier this year. [cls: ME TOO! Though for me it was the Carson City AFSCME Forum] She blew her opponents off the stage. She's been doing it ever since, except when she's holding steady, which gets no comment at all, except that somebody else "wins." However, now that her campaign skills have been proven and her ability to woo voters tallying up, the corporate hack pack doesn't know quite how to react. So they need an anti Hillary, someone who can take her down and Obama is the closest guy they've got right now, because Gore isn't running. Chris Matthew (sic) said it succinctly recently. To paraphrase, I cover politics so I want this race close. In Iowa, it's a three-way dead heat. But nationally it is not. In New Hampshire, it is not. South Carolina, Obama is up. However, in California and Florida there's only Clinton. But Obama has a lot of support and money, so just maybe he can do it. Maybe he can, but he's going to need some help.