One of my great peeves with the mainstream press is their love of the speculative piece. This New York Times article is a prime example. The article is a reaction piece to Karl Rove's recent statement that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.
On its own, that's a story. But the meat of the story, though, is about the reaction to it on behalf of John Edwards' peripatetic campaign manager Joe Trippi. Now the focus of the story shifts to whether Rove was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton or trying to ensure she would be the nominee by rallying Democrats around her.
However, there's no other substance to the story. We don't know Rove's motivation, nor do we know if his words matter enough to Democrats to move them one way or another. So really, what's the point?
It's politics, it's Kansas, it's Fort Hays State University.
2 comments:
The point is people think Karl Rove is a political mastermind so no matter what he says it opens itself up to being scrutinized. I think they give him too much credit. He was probably just responding honestly to the question and Clinton is seemingly the strongest candidate so far.
The media never ceases to amaze..and the left hates Rove so much they'd do anything to smear him.
Post a Comment