The LA Times had a story this summer describing how the Karl Rove and the Republicans have a strategy of attacking the weakest candidate, thus leading Democrats to rally around him/her while growing distrustful of the stronger candidate. In 2004, they did this by attacking Kerry, the weaker candidate, in order to beat back the stronger candidate in Edwards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/20/BL2007082000872_pf.htmlWallsten recalls what Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd apparently acknowledged during a conference at Harvard shortly after the 2004 election. During the primaries, Rove was considerably more afraid of then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina than of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Dowd said. "Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds," Dowd said.
So they attacked Kerry.
Like deja vu, this year Rove and other Republicans have publicly attacked Hillary while avoiding talking about Obama or Edwards. A couple weeks ago, Karl Rove wrote a column offering Obama "unsolicited advice on how to defeat Hillary Clinton". And some pundits like
Joe Conason and
Earl Ofari Hutchinson took the bait, saying this showed that Rove and the Republicans thought Obama was the weaker candidate. How does that saying go: "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again."
Of course, I'm not saying that this proves the Republicans think Hillary is the weaker candidate. It's just as likely Rove and the Republicans are playing reverse reverse psychology now that the word is out on their prior tricks. The bottom line is that it's impossible to know. And really, why should we care what Rove or any of the Republicans think? I keep seeing people argue about who the Republicans fear. Why should it matter? Are they any smarter than us? If anything, it's the opposite. So maybe we should just focus on finding the best candidate instead of falling for these stupid Republican mind games.