More Politics

Related to my previous post (or why I'm not so confident about 2008) and why Rove is still dangerous, here's some thoughts on political framing.
Objectively, there is no way that shrub should have even been close to Gore or Kerry. Both were much more qualified, and should have won in a landslide. But a funny thing happened on the way to the election. Gore became a "phony" in "pastels". Kerry became a "flip-flopper" who may have "faked his war record". Shrub was "resolute" and "a guy you'd like to have a beer with".
That was what the media told us over and over again. How did this framing become so pervasive? One of the reasons was Karl Rove. He is an expert at getting a "meme" into the mainstream media. The big time talking heads listen to him, and parrot the talking point he pushes ad nauseaum.
We can already see the beginning of the framing for '08. Think of Edwards' "hair" or Obama's "blackness" (I don't have time to catalogue all the Clinton framing) compared to the "manliness" of any of the rethug candidates. This is what Rove does.
A lot of blogs seem to think Rove is now "shamed", but I doubt it. He has too many friends in the MSM who will continue to refer to him as a "genius". Congress has not laid a glove on him, in spite of ample opportunity.
Remember that the average voter (sorry, American public, but it's true) hates politics, and only knows what their TV tells them about the candidates. The "image" is what matters.
The rethugs have shown that you only need to make it close enough in order to steal the election. They're very good at it. The corporations are very good at marketing image (why is McDonalds so big?) and they are on the rethug side.
That's why I'm not celebrating Rove's resignation, or confident about '08.
added: Anybody out there old enough to remember Lee Atwater?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater