Yesterday, Karl Rove defended his recent comments that suggested Hillary Clinton could have brain damage:
Chotiner expects the attack to backfire:
Rove has always been overrated as a strategist. (If the Florida recount had gone the other way, Bush’s decision to campaign in New Jersey and California in the week before the 2000 election would have gone down as one of the great blunders in campaign history.) But, as with Rand Paul’s comments about Monica Lewinsky, Republicans seem completely confused as to how to run against Hillary Clinton. The two times Clinton has been most popular or politically robust were during the Lewinsky mess and parts of the 2008 campaign, when she came to be seen as a victim of media sexism. Perhaps Rove is so Machiavellian that for some reason he wants Clinton to win in 2016, thus ensuring…who knows what? Either that or his comments are simply dumb as well as nasty.
Beinart isn’t so sure:
Why does Rove allegedly smear his opponents this way? Because it works.
Consider the Clinton “brain damage” story. Right now, the press is slamming Rove for his vicious, outlandish comments. But they’re also talking about Clinton’s health problems as secretary of state, disrupting the story she wants to tell about her time in Foggy Bottom in her forthcoming memoir.
Assuming she runs for president, the press will investigate Clinton’s medical history and age no matter what Rove says. But he’s now planted questions—about the December 2012 blood clot that forced her into the hospital, and about her mental condition as she ages—that will lurk in journalists’ minds as they do that reporting. If she has a moment of Rick Perry-like forgetfulness sometime between now and the fall of 2016, Rove’s comments make it more likely that voters will wonder whether she’s still with it mentally.
Kleiman makes related points:
My high-school biology textbook told me that the paramecium is the lowest form of animal life. Obviously, the author of that textbook had never encountered Karl Rove. He knows how to play the media like a violin, half-saying things he can later deny, getting a story each time that plants a nasty suspicion about an opponent, and reporters don’t know how to resist.
Waldman weighs in:
Here’s one way to understand Rove’s comments: They might be a way of testing how allegations about Clinton’s health — or about anything else — play out in the press. Will the news media pick them up and run with them? How far can Republicans go in making unsubstantiated charges? What kind of blowback will there be, and would it outweigh the benefits to Republicans of making Clinton answer uncomfortable questions? After all, while Rove may not be quite the political genius many believe, he doesn’t make statements like that without a reason.
Cillizza adds:
Rove is not exactly the ideal messenger to carry the “Is Hillary healthy enough to be president?” argument. “Having Karl Rove lead the charge will only solidify Democratic support behind Hillary, and risks alienating independents who think personal attacks are out-of-bounds,” said one Democratic consultant granted anonymity to speak candidly about the political impact from Rove’s comments.
In the end, Clinton’s health and age will only be an issue if there is a re-occurrence (or some new occurrence) of a medical problem that suggests she may not be able to carry out the duties of the office. If Clinton is actively moving around the country — speaking, raising money and, eventually, campaigning — without incident, the age and health questions will likely disappear.
The Dish 