I just don't buy the whole calculating part of the Clintons on this. Given the HUGE number of mistakes that Clinton has made during the campaign, it seems far too clever by half.

If arrogance is soon to become a GOP line of attack against Obama, I think it's probably best for him to continue showing the world how very comfortable he is with being an incredibly shitty bowler.

Yeah, Rove is reading way too much into this.  Reminds me of the saying "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."  Hillary pretty much framed it as offering a two-for-one deal, and it's easy to see how that could help her, so there's no reason to impute some subtle scheme to the Clintons.

Still, Rove's main point is largely independent of whether the "baiting" by the Clintons was deliberate.  There's a separate question of whether Obama's response was the right one.  I think it was in this case.  Obama had to push back on this one because the type of answer Rove suggests (I just want to bring everyone together) would have played right into the two-for-one message; he had to reject it explicitly.  He does make an interesting point about the body language.  Turning off the sound to see how it looks is an interesting exercise, not just in this particular case, but more generally for political speeches.

"P.P.S. Rove's focus on Obama's arrogance is interesting, and does highlight the senator's biggest problem: He often seems arrogant!"

Ouch!  I think the operative word here is "seems" as in Obama "seems" arrogant to Isaac and Rove apparently.  I totally disagree.  I wonder if this is not because an african american is not being sufficiently deferential, at least not in the eyes of some.  

Rove is just playing games. This argument is, as you say very far-fetched. I guess Rove is trying to have the Democrats believe that Obama is not ready for a run against the Republican machine by calling 'stragegic errors' on Obama. For the record, I believe that reacting on Hillary's claims was a smart thing to do, since it confronted the voters once again who was leading, who was the frontrunner.

"I think it's probably best for him to continue showing the world how very comfortable he is with being an incredibly shitty bowler."

Didn't you hear? Obama's inability to bowl just shows how black he is, how educated he is, how he's not an ordinary person. He's so arrogant, the way he thinks he can get away with being bad at an ordinary man's sport.

I, an Obama supporter, am not ashamed to admit, yes, he is arrogant and it's a problem he will have to deal with in himself for himself and for the sake of a successful campaign the nomination and the Presidency. Otherwise he is a pol (and so what?).

If anyone's wondering why and how Obama comes across as arrogant, he or she ought to start by reading the witheringly snide and contemptuous comments directed by the Obamamaniacs at Hillary's older blue-collar supporters on this and other political websites. On this site alone, we've heard a meme reprised that Hillary's supporters are "dumb." Racist. Out of it. Bitter old farts with one foot in the grave already.

Combine this with Obama's slick little maneuver in which, for pure political advantage, he decided to announce to the whole world that the old white lady who helped raise him, ie his hitherto obscure grandma, is a racist whose sins are on a par with those of a conspiracy-mongering preacher who preaches that the government is deliberately infecting black people with AIDS.

So put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary older white person and ask yourself whether the person who would make such an equation, and whose young followers are given to puerile insults about the educational levels of their fellow Democrats, is someone worthy of your respect and admiration.

Obama's got a problem. No, it's not a problem of race, rather that same godd*amned Arrogant, Clueless Elitist problem that John Kerry and Mike Dukakis both had (and Gore too, to a lesser extent). If he doesn't start addressing it, and  start addressing older white blue-collar Dems with some real respect and concern for their views, he's likely to achieve the same result that Dukakis and Kerry did.

Talk about missing the point. While you guys obsess about BHO vs HRC-- kind of silly, given that there's almost zero probability at this point of Obama not receiving the nomination-- this clue as to how Rove and teh GOP are planning to yet again help us defeat ourselves in the general skipped right by you.His on-record comments make crystal clear what the off-record bombshell was: Rove and GOP operatives don't fear Obama; they have contempt for him. They think he's an easier mark than Hillary. Nice job, guys.

Here are the key grafs:

KR: ...[Obama's] argument is twofold. "Vote for me because I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together; we're not red states, blue states, we're the United States." And second of all—and he said this most passionately in the Wisconsin victory speech: "There are big issues facing the country, and it requires leadership and energy to solve them." Well, the two best counters to those are Hillary saying, "I've actually worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done." Or McCain saying, even more pointedly, "On all the big issues where Republicans and Democrats have come together, I've been in the middle of bringing them together, and you've been way out there on the fringe. When we pulled together the Gang of Fourteen, you were out on the fringe. When we pulled together a bipartisan answer on the terrorist-surveillance program, you were way out there on the fringe. When Democrats and Republicans, regardless of where they were on the war, came together to give our troops everything they needed while they were in combat, you were way out there on the fringe." Now, she can do some of that, because she's actually tried to work with Republicans over the years. He has not since he got there. He's been coolly detached and sitting on the side. His fingerprints are on, at most, a couple of small items. And then, on the leadership issue, she can say, "Look, I've been in the middle of these big battles. I've been providing the leadership. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. But at least I've been involved." And McCain will be able to sharpen that even more.

GQ: It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic?

KR: I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions.

GQ: Are you surprised at how Obama exploded?

KR: You know, I want to be careful—I think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"—the Republicans who support Obama.

GQ: You don't buy that?

KR: No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it's nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it's three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why. There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em....

GQ: Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?

KR: Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.

This is the most fascinating part:

GQ: I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama.

KR: Off the record?

GQ: Please don't go off the record.

KR: Off the record… [GQ: Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]

GQ: Damn! Now say that on the record.

KR: No. Nope. Nope. Nope.

GQ: Let's try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him.

KR: Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uh—she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has.

Ha! Kerry didn't drag himself "down to their level" when he was swiftboated, by Rove, and see what happened. I think Rove knows what happened. But yeah, Obama has to remember that he's not allowed to be all uppity and stuff. Only Reagan and BIll Clinton get to do that.

And tep, why are you conflating Obama with his youthful supporters? I think you're smarter than that, and therefore it's maybe a bit dishonest, argumentwise.

psantillana - his use of his white grandmother, who helped raise him, was more than dishonest. Given how intelligent he is, such a blatantly bogus comparison was smug and cynical. (Also cruel, given that the whole world now views this heretofore obscure woman as Hawaii's most famous racist. Cute.)

I believe this trait is what Rove alluded to in his off-the-record remark. Rove mentioned a similar incident involving comments Obama made about Rove. More and more GOPers, esp the smartest and most ruthless operatives, are coming to the conclusion that it's Obama, not Hillary, who will be the easier target for the GOP in the fall. Let's be smart about this, for once, and not come across as Smarter Than Thou to millions of voters who are likely to find Obama's granny episode less than cunning and cute.

My guess as to what Rove said off the record: "Obama is an arrogant little sh*t."

In a column he wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month, Rove was virtually giving Hillary tips on how to run her campaign and I see he's doing it again here. If anyone thinks for a minute that Rove is doing all this out of a sense of charity toward the Democratic party, they're delusional. Rove and his minions fear Obama and the new brand of politics he stands for, which is why they have to tag him with the label "arrogant." They can't afford not to run against Hillary and Bill, the gift that keeps on giving. If Obama prevails in November, Rove loses everything he's spent the last decade building.

Rove is a Republican "Ben" (Lost) and as amoral as anyone can be.  Rove invented dirty politics as we know it today.  Anything coming out of his mouth is calculated to 'win', damage an opponent (real or only perceived), spin gold out of cow flop, and manipulate the listener.  He's extremely intelligent, but that doesn't mean I'd put any credence into anything he says.  

Every Republican commentator on the tube has been all over Obama since it looked like he was gonna be the nominee. At first they liked him and talked about him positively, but once it looked like they were gonna actually have to RUN AGAINST HIM, they've been doing their best to cut him down to size and either get Hillary the nomination or at least hurt Obama as much as possible in the process. I don't watch all of them, but there was a moment (literally almost a single frickin' MOMENT - all within the same couple of days anyway), shortly after Wisconsin, when Scarborough, Buchanon, Brooks, and Will (at least) changed their tone very obviously from one of respect and admiration for Obama to one of contempt for him and respect for Hillary. Based on the polling that says that 70-80% of Republicans think Obama will be a tougher opponent for McCain, I don't find this surprising or mysterious. And it also plays in with trying to stretch the race out for as long as possible because its a hell of a story and good for ratings.

As a Democrat, I wouldn't listen to Rove on strategery - like he's gonna really give us good advice?

Isaac, your friends were "outraged" that Hillary suggested he be veep?  Don't let these people watch The Hills or they'll really blow a gasket :-)

In the general I think (hope) that Obama has to substance-up.  That reconcilliation talk isn't going to withstand "what would be your agenda for the first 100 days"  and if he says "I'll hold a conference..." eyes will roll.  He should have a list of executive orders (i.e., reversal of Bush executive orders) for day 1.

Here's how Obama can blunt some arrogance (McCain too): make an accountability pledge.  Tell us what you'll accomplish in your first term which you promise not to run for reelection if it doesn't happen.  People don't mind arrogance as much as long as you're willing to back it up!

Tep- I understand you want to have more balance wrt Obama, and you're probably right. But dear god- your whole grandmother meme is taken whole cloth from the Fox news spin on it, and bears little resemblance to his actual tone when discusing her. He never claimed she was racist, implicitly or explicitly.

ramboo- I agree. Rove isn't going to be givng dems good advice, particularly not for free. We need to be critical about our inevitable nominee, but that doesn't mean we can't ignore Rove. We should.

Tep,

"Obama's got a problem. No, it's not a problem of race, rather that same godd*amned Arrogant, Clueless Elitist problem that John Kerry and Mike Dukakis both had (and Gore too, to a lesser extent). If he doesn't start addressing it, and  start addressing older white blue-collar Dems with some real respect and concern for their views, he's likely to achieve the same result that Dukakis and Kerry did."

What issues does McCain win with older blue-collar democrats over BHO?  Health Care? The War? The Economy?

Why would a Democrat cross over for McCain from BHO?  Arrogance for me is having MCCain spend 26 years in office and not  "understanding" the economy.  That issue affects me, my family and all Americans everyday and yet he can't find the time to figure it out.

Angry, dismissive, and arrogant? Ugh, Carl ever taken a look at the Bush/Cheney ticket and presidency? I couldn't have come up with a more concise description. Seriously, Rove is a vicious little prick that has seen his day come and go. He will always have an audience on Fox News, but never forget who - as much as anyone - helped give the Democrats the House, Senate and eventually the White House. Carl destroyed the Republican Party brand and Obama should take his advice?

I listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered during my commute to work.  During the day, when I have a few free minutes, I skim nytimes.com and read TNR, Slate, and a few other political/cultural opinion sites.  I have subscriptions to Foreign Affairs and the New Yorker and I've watched upwards of 90% of the debates.

In other words, I may not be a total political junkie, but I think I'm a relatively well-informed kinda guy.  And yet this blog post is the first time the Hillary-invited-Barack-to-be-her-running-mate-was-that-smart-or-condescending meme has penetrated my consciousness.  

So what effect will this have on the election?  My guess: absolutely none.  Because the only people who care about this sort of thing are people who have already made up their minds.

Most of the posters above seem to think that Rove was offering his honest opinion, whether or not sound.

In fact what he did -- which is how he has made his living and his reputation -- was offer words that would help the cause of his candidates.

So ... Rove's message, going beyond the specific question, is that Obama is arrogant and inexperienced.  That's a core part of his party line, and he would send that message no matter what the question and no matter who the questioner.  It had nothing to do with whether Obama should be Clinton's running mate.

tep - I love my mother, and she has a number of black friends, but she thinks of all the blacks she hasn't met as "others" who either lazy bums or thieves.  What he said about his grandmother I see in my family.  That line is for those of us who have family members who keep saying things that we personally have gotten beyond.

As for arrogance, there is no way a Democrat will be able to completely toss the elitist label until enough people realize that sometimes you actually have to think about a problem to solve it, and that some problems can't be solved by throwing up a wall, or holding your hand up and yelling "Stop! Don't take those jobs offshore!"  If Obama were to completely try to pretend he is a pickup -truck driving country boy, it would obviously be fake - think Kerry and hunting.  And there is nothing here that Hillary offers any advantage in.

micecelf  and anon: I think what people find off-putting is that he dragged his grandmother into the Wright stew.  Regardless of where you place Obama's allegation about her attitudes on the "racist" scale, he singled her out for effect -- he could have said "close family members" or somesuch, but instead he made her a public figure.  I'm not sure she's physically even in a position to explain herself if she wanted to.  Also, if you read "Dreams of My Father," if Obama was alluding to the incident about the bus stop, I'm not sure his grandmother was expressing anything like what anon writes.  

Maybe everyone has missed the most obvious fact of this Karl Rove interview in GQ and this goes to those who agree with what Rove said in the magazine. It's IN FRICKIN' GQ! What is the demographic for GQ? It certainly isn't the 20 something Lad working in Brooklyn, it isn't the NASCAR dad working as a line mechanic in Kentucky, it isn't the college student at Bob Jones university. It's upper class 30-something guys vying for corner offices, like Patron tequila and wear $400 jeans who like to read a magazine with as much journalistic weight as Playboy or Maxim. It's a g*d damn lifestyle magazine! That isn't the magazine for the average, older blue-collar workers. It's not even Details which is equally as crappy but read by more "working class" stiffs that GQ. Heck...it's not even Esquire which aims for that 40 something crowd.

About the only quote out of that that will make it to that voter demographic is what GOP operatives pull out of it...Karl Rove likes Hillary and thinks McCain isn't as arrogant as Obama.

There's a fine line between being arrogant and confident. I consider Bush to be arrogant...it's the way he walks, the way he talks down to folks with his "chummy" nicknames. While Obama can come off as arrogant in many instances, I think much of that is confused for confidence in himself that can easily be translated into arrogance. Look folks, anyone that even remotely decides they're running for POTUS is arrogant. You have to have a certain level of arrogance to think that you're POTUS material. Then you spend the rest of the time convincing folks you're "one of them" by going to dinners, kissing babies, visiting factories, bowling, visiting the troops, etc.

So really...which is the most arrogant guy/gal in the race? John "I didn't come here for this crap" McCain, HIllary "The Inevitable One" Clinton or Barack "My white grammy is racist" Obama?

Tep  the point of the speech is that people have biases. He wasn't claiming that his grandmother is a bad as Wright, merely that everyone holds  some biases. Did you even read the speech? The most shocking thing about the speech is that it addressed Americans seriously.

Disagree, Lymon. In specifically naming his grandmother, it gave Obama's story much more heft. I'm in marketing and we use testimonials all the time for that very reason. Real people can make a point far more effectively than some anonymous composite. Look, it's not like he "threw her under a bus," as the Sean Hannity crowd would tell you. He simply reaffirmed that if we disowned (or, if you prefer, denounced and rejected) everyone around us who made objectionable statements, we'd all be pretty freakin' lonely.

Boooooring.

hi mice - I don't watch TV, and if I did, I wouldn't waste any time with watching FOX. My views are taken from some 30 very painful years of watching Dems screw themselves over in national elections with clueless and/or arrogant candidates who could not connect with our core working class constituency. I'm tired of losing. I'd like the working man's party to nominate someone who respects and deeply understands the concerns of working families, including those working-class white voters who've not bought into the Obama phenom.

t

BHL:  Exactly -- he gave his speech more heft ****at her expense.****  He sacrificed her reputation for the extra emotional ooomph.  You can't honestly say that her reputation was *helped* by Obama's comments.  Just the reverse -- call it "objectionable" or "racist," Obama talked up what he considers a flaw.  And again, can she respond?  She's old, apparently in bad health and a shut-in Hawaii.  What if she has a different take -- again, take a look at the bus stop incident in Dreams of My Father, I'm not sure it justifies "objectionalbe" (she seems to go out of her way to keep it not-racial but grandpa steps in and puts the racist spin on it).  

My response to any opinion expressed by Karl Rove:

So??

tep, if Dems understood the concerns of working-class white voters would it not follow that those voters would be voting for Dems?  Except they don't, and you know it.  And you know why.

Identity politics uber alles, all abortion, all the time, and a milquetoast foreign policy.  Just to name a few.

Will BHO be any better?

singlespeed - "Maybe everyone has missed the most obvious fact of this Karl Rove interview in GQ and this goes to those who agree with what Rove said in the magazine. It's IN FRICKIN' GQ!"

I'm with you. I asked on another thread why the hell _TNR_ didn't score an interview with Rove (as opposed to riffing on YouTube vids)

TNR couldn't afford the amount of food Rove demanded.

It seems obvious that Clinton talking about this offered two advantages to Clinton; it signaled that she would be prepared to take significant steps to unify the party if she won, and it let those Democratic voters who like both candidates know that with her at the top of the ticket they would probably get Obama too.

I don't see how that is "bringing Obama down to her level." Unless you object to a level that acknowledges her opponent's popularity and signals her interest in party unity."

One of the things that is keeping Obama from closing the deal is his stubborn refusal to acknowledge his opponent's appeal, to see her supporters in a positive light, or to signal his interest in, and his understanding of the importance of, keeping those supporters in the fold after he wins.

Just curious: are other commenters here intrigued by the purported opinions of Karl Rove on the Democratic candidates? Obviously, nothing he says can be taken at face value . . . and these comments are only "newsworthy" if outfits like the New Republic reprint them and call them "interesting."

I didn't read this blogpost, or the other Rove blogpost, and don't think either of them belong on this site.

But then, I'm not one of the folks who thinks that Rove is some sort of "strategic genius." To me, that's like saying Al Capone was a strategic genius, because he thought up the brilliant idea of murdering and terrorizing the people who got in his way. Erm, no, that's just cruelty, amorality and thuggishness.

Tep...Can you imagine if TNR actually had interviews in the mag? Beyond just analysis and in depth reporting, opinion pieces, and those laboriously long book reviews on equally laborious subject matter 'that speak nothing to me about my life', they could have one interview a month or bi-weekly on a person in politics, the arts, and make it a heavy interview. I think that's the one thing it's always been missing and I propose they replace Marty's rants with such a change.

Bela - it's called Understanding the Enemy.

So we don't get wrong-footed yet again. As we did in '04, and '00, and '88....

"You can't honestly say that her reputation was *helped* by Obama's comments" Yes indeed Lymon, there is nothing more important than the reputation nobody has ever heard of, and who is doubtlessly far more thrilled in the knowledge that her grandchild is likely to be President than she would ever worry about this aspect of her "reputation." But I will just take it at your word that you are diligently standing up for her and have no political agenda whatsoever.

Well, I hereby give any grandchild I have permission to talk about one of my many flaws (especially as minor as off color speech) if in doing so helps them become President. Anyone who says I am being thrown under the bus is lying, I am hereby throwing myself under the bus.

Be honest, is everyone here so jealous of their reputation that they would indulge a beloved grandchild in this matter?

blackton -- um, I think at the point of the speech most peopl have heard of Barrack Obama.  Regardless, what's offensive here is you trying to speak for her (and all grandparents) while accusing me of doing the same thing!   Re-read my post -- there's a question of whether his grandmother is capable of speaking for herself.  Prior to the Wright controversy she told a reporter by phone that she was "in poor health" and wasn't doing interviews.  And have you read that passage in Dreams from My Father?  Do you disagree with how I interpreted it?  Again, re-read my post -- I said there may be more than just that, but it appears to be what stuck in Obama's craw.  

Actually my political agenda is to get Obama's supporters to have an operation on their tin ears in time for the Fall.

Anyway, you are of course free to give permission to your grandkids ahead of time, but it begs the question why stop at "talk[ing] about one of my flaws" -- why not let them make up wholesale lies about you while you're at it?  "Grandpa to a President" -- it'd be worth holding your tongue, right?  

I don't get it.  An arrogant Yalie with an unctuous manner and an irritating and querolous voice gets elected president twice, and we're worrying about Obama!

Would you stop believing this crap just because somebody says it!  In particular, Rove saying it means nothing except that Obama is unknown territory for them.  John Kerry didn't lose in '04 because he was tall and lanky and spoke in sentences, he lost because he allowed the Swift Boaters to get a foot in the door and screw with his military record, and because Ohio counting was murky.

Furthermore, people aren't worried about a "milquetoast foreign policy" as much as they are worried about how to extract ourselves from a war makes no sense anymore, that has no victory to offer, and that boxes us in diplomatically at every turn.

Obama has shown that he can connect with people of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that someone who spent years in community work at the grassroots will have difficulty talking to ordinary folks in ordinary places doing ordinary jobs.  In the general election he's going to be the way out of the mess that the Republicans have created, and McCain is going to be the road curving back around.

And if it's close and BHO loses, McCain will have a Democratic house and senate to deal with.  And if it's close because the conservative base didn't come out to vote, then McCain owes them nothing.

tep, and to the degree that you really mean what you say, lymon, I'll try to put the grandmother thing the way I see it.

First, this bit about his grandma was in his first book - and if you really want to flesh out who he is on this, I recommend it very much - it won't be a chore, it's a page-turner. But he didn't "throw her under the bus" for a political point. And how would that even work? Who out there was stomping feet and pounding table for granny's blood?

He brought her up as someone who loves him times a thousand, and vice versa, and here she is saying stuff that hurts him, very likely based on her age and culture, and of course he's not going to kick her to the curb. Or throw her off a bus. That's a given. And in the same spirit, he's viewing Wright's hurtful comments in context, rather than just pushing the trapdoor button because the comments were not pc.

And no, he wasn't equating the two in terms of the "hate level' of the speech, but it wasn't about hate level - white women don't culturally or historically have much bitterness against black people, or much reason for it - it was about stuff you grew up with. She grew up viewing black men as menacing until proven innocent, and Wright grew up marinating in white racism and real violence directed at black people in a way that subsequent generations just did not. We can get all mad about Emmett Till in retrospect but Wright was Till's age and race, possibly saw the open casket himself at that funeral in Chicago, and saw how the jury acquitted the killing in record time - you can't know what that's like, and how hard that is to exorcise from your limbic brain. So no matter how off-base the stuff he said was, understand where it comes from, and disagree with him but don't just demonize the guy.

I feel like you are demonizing Obama in just this rigid way and it's off-putting.

Nobody knows how to push the buttons of Democrats and the Left better than Karl Rove.  Look how he's got you guys going with his rather benign remarks.

P.S. When did "throw him/her under the bus" become the new political cliché?

I hear it over and over from every talking head on cable and in every sound bite.

Now people at tnr, where people usually try to speak with a little originality, now people here are saying the underbus thing.

Can we have a creative meeting, guys, and come up with some other ways of saying this idea?  How 'bout, "stabbed her in the back"?  Or "stuffed her in the trunk"?  Or "pushed her through the woodchipper"?

irony, how about we have a four-term moratorium on Ivy leaguers?  Just good 'ol State U or Notre Dame types.

Does no one remember the book "The Best and the Brightest"?  It was an ironic title, irony.

Or maybe UCLA?  I'm not against the moratorium, I just think that it's silly to give too much weight to actual biography when competing perception spins are the deal.  This began (at the latest) in 1840 when Van Buren, an incumbent president with a genuinely working class background, got saddled with the image of an effete bourgeois, when William Henry Harrison, a landed aristocrat as far as America had them at all, rode to the presidency on the wings of an aggrieved populism.

Ploo sah shawnj, ploo sa mem shows, as Ernest Hemingway used to say when he was ordering another cocktail.

This looks absolutely like a calculated plan by Clinton.  Why else would you offer up the VP to someone who's leading??? That's like Iceman telling Maverick "You can be my wingman anyday. " Obama should have laughed and said "You can be mine. "  Instead he goes and arrogantly shoots down the offer, which Clinton didn't really intend as a serious one.

Hook, line, and sinker.  Though I don't agree with Rove that there was much damage done to his campaign.  Please.  The dude could take a dump on a picture of Hillary Clinton and not lose a step.