Q: The lady or the paper tiger? (or: Is Karl Rove rooting for Hillary Clinton?)

Rove: "Pay no attention to the viable candidate on the right"...?

A: At first, the idea presented in this L.A. Times piece from yesterday seems crazy: Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology. But is it so crazy, it just might work have already worked?

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who George W. Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at John Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Rove has plenty of reasons to prefer Clinton to Barack Obama. Even if Clinton beats whatever dope the GOP nominates, she'll still be a divisive figure her political opponents can marginalize, just as they did when she was First Lady. She's not going to be the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. Obama could change things significantly -- both in terms of pushing through policy and shifting rhetoric -- in ways Hillary can't and won't.

Everyone should be voting Obama. Have I mentioned this?

Q: Did John McCain just lose more supporters than he gained?

A: You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I would have considered voting for McCain over Hillary or wittle Johnny Edwards, but not anymore. Now I'm just considering moving to Canada.

• McCain: Roe v. Wade should be overturned [Yahoo! News]

Or Iceland. The girls are totally bangin' in Reykjavic.

Q: Don't kids say the darnedest things?

A: They sure do. Like, for instance, this one little boy, John Edwards, says he wants to be pwesident! Isn't that just adorable!?

---

If you want to know how excited I am for John Edwards' candidacy, I have two answers -- one for each of the two Americas.

In the first America, I am not at all excited, because Edwards is a reminder of the shallowness of the Democratic candidate pool (Barack not withstanding, obvs). In the second America, I am conflicted, because although I long to make fun of him, it seems unfair to ridicule such an innocent and adorable child.

Here's the video of John Edwards announcing his intentions to announce his intention of running for president. The news broke, appropriately, on Rocketboom, which is very popular with the kiddies¹.



To Edwards' credit, he does seem to have a better grasp of his own talking points than he did last campaign. For instance, he seems to know what several of the words mean (I mean, aside from when he says he wants to get engaged in genocide).

Once you get past his wide-eyed idealism, though, is there any there there?

Edwards might be saying all the right things (or, at least, saying what the kids want to hear) -- but the average digg.com user could cough up the same shpiel, as could Ned Lamont, as could I.

Take away the photogenic smile and the handlers arming him with sellable talking points; does Edwards have the cunning to get shit done in the Oval Office? Good thing we'll never find out, because the answer would likely disappoint you.

ANDBYTHEWAY: Edwards' online campaign headquarters is still OneAmericaCommittee.com. Which is kind of funny, because didn't the "two Americas" concept flop pretty badly last election? Does the Edwards camp really think rephrasing a bombed slogan is the best bet they have? Did they prepay for several hundred years rights to the URL in 2003, and can't afford to cut their losses?

It's things like this that make me confident that Edwards '08 ain't gonna fly. What worries me is the possibility of his adorable face being enough to snag the Dems' nomination. Please, God, no. To be continued.

---

¹ On a semi-related note, what the hell is going on with this Rocketboom interview? Do all of their breaking news briefs begin with 20 seconds of trying to figure out how the camera works? Are they trying to out-unprofessional Amanda Congdon? Is new media trying to out-retard old media? Is a smokin' rack the new large brain? Are dim-witted hotties the new intelligencia? Does this mean John Edwards is going to win? Am I crying hysterically right now?