Who's Brain-Damaged: Hillary Clinton Or Karl Rove?

by JASmius

It is a rule of public relations that media commentators can say things that (Republican) politicians can't, and there are things that lesser prominent media commentators can say that more prominent media commentators can't.  I, for example, can not only call Hillary Clinton "brain-damaged," I can even post vids riffing on it.....



.....but even I would be reluctant to do so on KCAA AM-1050 as opposed to the Hard Starboard Radio Network both because the audience for the former dwarfs that of the latter, and because that's over-the-air broadcast radio as opposed to Internet radio.  And that would be the case whether Constitution Radio was my show or not.

Why?  Because I potentially could get myself, and/or Mr. Gibbs, and/or KCAA in at least some degree of proverbial hot water.  At the very least, by making an assertion without having any evidence or research to back it up, it would come over as perjorative rather than substantive, and even "loose cannon" or "irreverent entertainer" commentators need some degree of credibility.  Because while it's fun to cut up on the air sometimes, and it makes for great radio, at the end of the proverbial day, when you have a serious point to make, you want the audience to (1) understand the difference and (2) at least ponder it a spell.

Either Karl "The Architect" Rove doesn't grasp that, or he does and had a brain fart last week so big that it left an equally sizeable skid-mark down the center of his face:

Republican operative Karl Rove said during a conference last week that Hillary Clinton may have brain damage, the New York Post's Page Six reports.
According to Page Six, Rove was at a conference near Los Angeles on Thursday when he said, "Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that."

Rove repeated the claim multiple times, according to Page Six. A representative for Clinton told the Post, "Please assure Dr. Rove she’s 100%."

Where, I wonder, did the Architect get that version?  Sounds like a rumor at best, and as both a public figure, "Republican operative," and media commentator, one would think he'd have the presence of mind to seek at least some rudimentary confirmation before repeating it "multiple times".  Because while the Empress did fall down and hit her head, resulting in a concussion with accompanying blood clot between her brain and skull, she was in the hospital for only three days, and that was a year and a half ago in any case.

I mean, really, if Hillary Clinton had been hospitalized for a month with possible brain damage, doesn't Mr. Rove think that would have been at least fairly big news?  And that La Clinton Nostra would have used her convalescence to both separate her departure from Foggy Bottom from Benghazigate and bank some lingering public sympathy for the 2016 presidential run everybody takes for granted that she's going to mount?

Or it could be that he's getting a leg up on working the age angle, judging by today's non-apology apology:

Republican strategist Karl Rove on Tuesday denied he said that Hillary Clinton had suffered brain damage from a fall while asserting the former secretary of state's age and health will become a campaign issue if she runs for president in 2016.

That denial is, dare I say it, Clintonoid in its slipperiness.  Did he utter that specific phrase last week?  No; he simply said the same thing in thirty words instead of four.  Then he expanded upon the innuendo:

Despite the denial, Rove also claimed that Clinton could be covering up possible health problems, saying "she has hidden a lot."

I'm sure she has.  She's a Clinton.  The only things she can't hide are her foul disposition, her Quint's-nails-on-the-chalkboard voice, Benghazi, her unstyleable hair, her Marxism-Alinskyism, her grotesque overabundance of skin, and the size of her ass.  But health problems?  Hell, that couple may have undergone gender-reassignment surgery and changed their names to "Hill and Billary" and we likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference at this point.

But I'm here to tell you, Karl, that this tactic will not work.  It will, instead, backfire, and badly, the harder you and other "Republican operatives" push it.  If Mrs. Clinton were a Republican, it'd be a no brainer, because the media would dutifully and robotically amplify it.  Hell, they did it to President Reagan back in the day.  Didn't work, but they did it.  Hell, that's about the only thing they didn't do to Sarah Palin, and that's only because even on the doorstep of fifty, she's still hot.  But they're not going to do it to Hillary Clinton, no matter that she looks ninety years older that God, and would even if her cosmetic surgeon bolted to her neck the kind of crank they use to tighten up tennis nets.

And that's kind of my point, Karl.  Everybody knows Hillary Clinton is an old hag.  Nobody can behold her epidermically rumpled, prismatically fissured, veinously filigreed, vaguely lunar visage even at a single glance and not know it.  And the subconscious assumption/suspicion/speculation of the health problems that come with it will be close on its visceral heels.  You don't need to oversell the point.  Because the more you try to draw attention to it, the easier it will be for La Clinton Nostra and their media sycophants to produce chapter-and-verse stories on how spry and energetic and indefatigable and "tanned, rested & ready" she is to take over the Obama dictatorship and outlive even him.  You'll provide them with opportunities to reassure voters about her health and fitness for office they wouldn't otherwise have, because to go out of their way to say so in the absence of any provocation from your direction would simply draw public attention to the doubts you want the voters to have.

Finally, there is the fact that you make yourself and the GOP look both foolish, afraid of Hillary, and play right into the "Republican attack machine" cliché that'll be deployed in any case without you handing them free ammunition, plus you run the risk of making "Killary" into, yes, a sympathetic figure.  Or have you forgotten that the Left doesn't give a frog's fat leg about charges of hypocrisy (because the media never calls them on it) and will play the "chivalry" card with heedless vengeance?

For somebody who earned the nickname "Architect" based on his political acumen, Karl Rove has certainly lost a step or six, if this kerfuffle is any indication.  Are we sure he isn't the one that slipped on the banana peel?