Compared to whom?

Karl Rove has making the rounds of talk shows emphasizing Hillary's "flawed candidacy" because she has a 42% negative rating, the largest negative rating for a candidate ever. Some think he is doing this as an example of reverse psychology - that is, if he's attacking her the democratic base will be more likely to support her and she will become the easiest candidate for Republicans to defeat. Others seem to think Rove is just being honest with his opinion. I don't really care one way or the other (except I doubt that Rove has ever been honest about anything). In any case what does it matter at the moment what her negatives are? The only meaningful question is what will it be compared to whom. If Hillary does become the democratic candidate she will be running against someone. Who that someone is will make a lot of difference with respect to her negatives. Let's say that Giuliani manages to hang on and bullshit his way to the republican nomination. He has to be one of the shallowest candidates ever. He knows nothing about foreign policy, his claim to 9/11 fame is mostly fabricated and his lies about it are catching up with him. Then there is his spotty (to say the least) record of three marriages, the fact that even his children don't support him, and he basically doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. He's a supporter of gay rights and abortion that will not sit well with the conservative base of the republican party. Do you believe that Hillary's negatives will not be more than balanced out against him? I don't believe it. How about Romney who has proven himself to be a lying, unthinking twit that blurts out utter nonsense like "we should double Guantanamo," and "I've been a hunter all my life." There is the mythological Fred Thompson who so far is not yet declared and has already gone through a couple of campaign committees to say nothing of having already broken the campaign laws and sports a buxom trophy wife. The conservatives are supposed to like him. Maybe so, but he's no Ronald Reagan (actually that's perhaps his best point). Of course there's Huckabee who's been coming on strong, a guitar playing singer who doesn't believe in evolution and is a conservative Christian. The base may well like him. I believe that against any of these candidates Hillary will look great and those negatives will vanish in the voting booths like the morning fog rising from the mountaintops. I am not a fan of Hillary's but if it comes down to Hillary versus whom, I know who I will have to vote for. Much as I don't like to admit it I believe Hillary so far has proven by far the best candidate. If Obama or Edwards don't do something soon it will be all over.

Why would anyone take anything Karl Rove says as true, or even useful. Rove denies he leaked Plame's name to be immediately countradicted by Matthew Cooper who insists that Rove did leak her name to him. Now Rove is claiming the divisions in the country are the fault of democrats! Is this not absolutely typical Rove, projecting your weaknesses on others and claiming their strength to be your own? He has used this technique routinely in his years of lying and cheating. He obviously knows that the public memory is not only faulty but short. When the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate I guess it was the Democrats who were locking them out of rooms, passing bills without consulting them, extending sessions in order to browbeat their minions into voting their way, and so on. He packaged and sold a sow's ear to a gullible public as a silk purse (however fake it was) and he will do worse if we don't pay attention. Of course maybe he'll be spending so much time with his (grown) family he won't have time to con us any longer. Don't bet on it, suckers.

LKBIQ:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France