To combat Karl Rove’s smarmy Clinton hype in WSJ

It was difficult to get through Rove’s article, Is Obama Ready for Prime Time, in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal because it was so fraught with lies, er, I mean “misspeak.” The Clinton Machine, which now includes Rove, the so-called mastermind behind W’s campaign, insists she won by double digits: ten per cent … except she didn’t. She won by single digit 9.2 per cent.

To balance Rove in the same WSJ edition, there’s an article called Wonder Land by Daniel Henninger. In part, he writes:

“Barack Obama’s Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons’ “donor base” has been something else.

“It is hard to overstate how fatigued Democratic donors in Manhattan and L.A. got during the Clinton presidency to have Bill and Hillary fly in, repeatedly, to sweep checking accounts. The Lincoln Bedroom rental was cheesy. Bill’s 60th birthday gala (tickets $60,000 to 500K) was a Clinton fund-raiser. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal pushed Clinton contributors toward a milieu most didn’t need in their lives. Hillary’s 2007 Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was an unsettling rerun of what the donor base could expect from another Clinton presidency.

“It was all kind of gross, but the Clintons never seemed to see that. When Obama proved he could perform this most basic function in politics, it was a get-out-of-jail-free card for many Democrats. For some, this may be personal. For others, it is likely a belief that the party’s interests lie with finding an alternative to the Clinton saga. One guesses this is what Sam Nunn and David Boren concluded.”

Whether you like Clinton or Obama, you should read both articles. (Henninger) and (Rove)