Karl Rove weighs in
January 10, 2008, 12:51 pm
Posted by John McGreevy
Interesting that Rove doesn’t mention the possibility that some white voters might be uneasy with an African-American presidential candidate. But he does touch on what seems to me the most interesting data in the results: Obama as the clear winner among more educated, affluent and younger voters; Clinton as the clear winner among working-class and older voters. So Obama takes Clinton’s natural base, and Clinton takes Edwards’s?
John: I’d only repeat what I wrote in the previous post regarding the impact of race and class on the New Hampshire vote. To summarize: you’re right, and it doesn’t bode well. Obama is all eloquent and unscrutinized platitude. Let benevolent professionals and managers run everything, speechify about “change,” camouflage a fundamentally Clintonesque domestic and foreign policy platform. Clinton is all working-woman mythology: I’m the type who lays you off and pays you (not nearly enough) to clean my bathroom, but I feel your pain. (I even tear up about it occasionally.)
First, Rove is as sharp as usual and he can write. Who else could have sold the worst president in our history? Gene, Hillary railed against giant companies in her victory speech in New Hampshire. They did not get the tax breaks they are getting under this regime. In fairness Clinton hired a lot of people who were truly dedicated and jobs were a priority with more people working. So I wonder if you are being fair. (I don’t detect any Misogyny LOL)
Abrams on Cnbc has a whole thing tonight about the Washington media having a clear bias against Hillary. Sally Quinn, a woman more interested in parties (coctail that is) than ideas was a vocal critic of the Clintons while in Washington as she preferred to see them drinking rather than governing.
Rove’s article is substantial. Pretty incisive.