Do we want our own Karl Rove?

"I don’t have a Karl Rove. I don’t want a Karl Rove." -- John Edwards, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, when asked who would be his Karl Rove in an Edwards administration. (hat tip politicalwire)

Karl Rove is anathema to most Democrats and progressives. He is Roveldemort to many Americans, the Rasputin to George W Bush.

As I discussed in a previous entry, Hillary is running the most Rove-like campaign with tight messaging and few (unplanned) media leaks.

Natch, Edwards has to say that he doesn't have or want a Karl Rove, and indeed this is in line with his Two Americas theme. Rove clearly serves the dominant America, the United States of the wealthy, powerful, and elite. He accomplishes much through conniving, some might say illegal and unlawful ways. And he hammers through his agenda like no one else's business (in the short term, at least.)

Here we stand at the sunset of the Rove-Bush administration, with Rove leaving town with few fond farewells from even the GOP, having orchestrated a political takeover worthy of many military strategists. (Hopefully he's not leaving to engineer more evil deeds as a separate entity from the White House, so that Bush can't be complicit in his 1,000,000,001th diabolic scheme.)

So do we want a Machiavellian Democratic political consultant to usher in quick changes? Eradicate the conservative backlash that Rove, Atwater, et al have been brewing for decades? Cos you know, I think Mark Penn is Hillary's Rove. And I'm not sure I would want him on my side. But one might argue that you fight water with water, muck with muck.

I guess my question is why don't you just get a super spray gun and blast the muck away?