Posted on 07/07/2004 8:08:45 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
As you may already know, I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I do believe in politics. Sometimes there's not much difference.
The selection of John Edwards as John Kerry's running mate is a case in point. It isn't much about whether or not Edwards can deliver North Carolina to Kerry. Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but that's not the main deal.
It isn't about balancing a New Englander with a Southerner, a horse-faced bore with a vacuous hunk, or a foreign policy guy with a domestic policy guy. It isn't about how well Edwards did in a losing effort in the primaries or the power of his "Two Americas" speech.
It isn't even about his fund-raising prowess with the trial lawyers.
All that stuff is nice, and it doesn't hurt, but here's what's really going on:
The battle lines for control of the Democrat party for the next twelve to sixteen years have been laid out.
It's Kerry and Edwards versus the Clintons, and don't you forget it.
Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't decide to run for Senator from New York back in 2000 because she wanted to help the people of the Empire State, or because she thought it would be a wonderful honor to join the world's greatest deliberative body.
Being one of a hundred ain't her thing, no matter who the other ninety-nine are.
Since way back in the twentieth century, Clinton strategy has been all about how best to assure her election to the White House. The target year was 2008, and it worked best if the Republicans won in 2000, narrowly if at all possible, and again in 2004, convincingly.
The narrow 2000 win would keep down scuttlebutt that the election was a rejection of the Clinton years, and the convincing 2004 win would discredit whatever candidate ran that year.
Everything seemed to be going along just swimmingly until about a year ago when public dissatisfaction with the Iraqi post-war caused President Bush's popularity to sag. Gradually, it began to dawn on Democrats that they actually had a chance to beat Bush in 2004, and that troubled the ancien regime in Chappaqua. The focus of public attention was initially on Howard Dean, a loose cannon certain to take the Democrat party in new and unpredictable directions. Dean's momentum was spiked by the Clinton-induced insertion of the hapless Wesley Clarke into the race and died a- screaming in Des Moines a few months later.
Kerry's emergence was fine with the Clintons – somebody had to run, after all – but they cannot be happy with the selection of Edwards.
In mid-June, certain Democrat pollsters, reading what public opinion expert Karlyn Bowman delightfully calls the "poetry" of survey research, concluded that barring some politically cataclysmic event Kerry was going to win; the American people, they have come to feel, have decided against retaining Mr. Bush. In this other experts disagree, and the interpretation of poetry is a notoriously inexact science, but for the point of this discussion it suffices to say that the sanguine reports Kerry's pollsters have been giving him for the past several weeks emboldened him to take control of the party and throw the biggest monkey wrench imaginable into the Clintons' grand strategy.
A Kerry-Edwards win this year means an unchallengeable re-nomination in 2008 and a predictable Edwards candidacy in 2012 (and if he wins, again in 2016).
There's no room for Hillary in that scenario. Plan B in Chappaqua has been a 2012 run (Even though Democratic strategist Susan Estrich has written that Ms. R-C will be too old by then, in fact she'll be only 65.) and with an old warhorse like Dick Gephardt as vice-president (he'd be 71 then), there was still a chance.
Now (unless Edwards has more serious barnacles than seems likely) the only hope for Hillary is a Dukakis-style loss for Kerry; the Clintons might be able to engineer that, but it is an exceptionally risky business, one that could easily blow up in their faces.
The Bush campaign expects Kerry to move ahead by double digits during July, and hopes to be able to pull back even in August, when it will have a big financial advantage, as well as the presumed bounce from the Republican convention. If they're more or less even on Labor Day, the Bush team thinks it can pull out a close victory. But if it's another nail-biting Democratic loss in November, either Kerry or Edwards is sure to be back for the open-seat race in 2008.
Because we hate the Clintons so much, conservatives and Republicans seldom consider how other top Democrats must feel. After all, they know what wretches the Clintons are, probably better than we do. They also know how to play power politics better than we do, and for Democrats since 1992, playing power politics has meant kowtowing to Bill and Hillary. (You could ask Al Gore.)
By selecting John Edwards as his running mate, John Kerry has made a bold move to end that dependence, and that's why he did it.
Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All Things Considered.'
©2004 Jay Bryant
Interesting take, sir. I just thought Kerry was tossing the "Hail Mary" in hopes of putting some life into his campaign.
This is scary Jim. I hope this feeling that we are on a slippery slope to destruction will go away. I can't imagine America with those two at the helm.
We just lived through eight years of it. The thought of even four years of Hillary is frightening indeed.
The narrow 2000 win would keep down scuttlebutt that the election was a rejection of the Clinton years, and the convincing 2004 win would discredit whatever candidate ran that year.
Sounds like he's suggesting that the Clintons deliberately self destructed in their second term so that Bush would have a chance to win in 2000, albeit by a small margin.
No question there's a fight for the party between the clintons and the Kennedys.
What I've noticed is that the media have been bashing Bush just about nonstop. But they have also been mildly undermining Kerry as well. Most of them favor Kerry, but from time to time very liberal sources will run stories that damage him.
The only thing that can prevent Bush from winning is continued lying by the liberal media. If the clintons really want him to win, and if they have enough leverage, all they have to do is to persuade the media to start admitting that Bush has done a good job in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the economy is doing pretty well too.
She can't wait longer than 2008. She'll be far too ugly by 2012. Looks count. That is why JFK picked Edwards.
Trust me; the Clintonistas will do everything they can to insure that the Kerry/Edwards ticket loses in November. I've said many of the same things Jay Bryant said in this article. Hillary does not want to wait until 2012; she'll be too old. She has had her eye on 2008 ever since 2000 and she will not be deterred.
Why would one assume that? Nothing else has.
Hey! What are you doing posting? Aren't you supposed to be at your keyboard steadily banning DU trolls? :)
Chris
P.S. Good post.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't decide to run for Senator from New York back in 2000 because she wanted to help the people of the Empire State, or because she thought it would be a wonderful honor to join the world's greatest deliberative body."
'She's just a devil woman, with evil on her mind.
She's just a devil woman, she's gonna get ya'
Everybody sing along! 'She's just a devil woman...
I would not fret about this. It's one theory amongst thousands.
John Edwards: The political equivalent of breast implants.
One thing I noticed today is that Rush was in a major "funk". Really down. It got me a bit worried that he senses something just ain't right with the Bush campaign. Even Joe Scarborough was harping on how great Edwards is and almost predicting a kerry win. He really pissed me off. I can't stand to listen to him anymore. Just hope the clintons have a few monkeywrenches to throw into the mix.
That only happens in the Republican Party. Democrats always support their candidate.
Remember Rockefeller sabotaging Goldwater? Anderson vs Reagan. Buchanan vs Bush 41. McCain vs Bush 43...
I think you're right.
However, I still think Kerry may have health problems before November, and she has an eye on 2004.
Thanks for the ping!
That's just a little too tin-foil-hat-esque for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.