Posted on 07/08/2004 7:51:23 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Edwards and the Future of the Democrats
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 Democrat 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 they dislike the Clintons so much, conservatives and Republicans seldom consider how other top Democrats must feel. After all, Democrats 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.
About the Writer: Jay Bryant is a media consultant whose regular op-ed columns are available on his website at http://www.theoptimate.com.
the reasoning is actually simple: Everybody else has high negatives and would result in a net vote loss for Kerry-baby. the Boy Wonder has few negatives, and has the youthful appearance the dems love, so he is the best choice. I would have made that choice too given the alternatives.
and because it's his BEST choice, it is the WORST one for us.
In light of my "tinfoil" post of a short while ago, I thought I would ping this to you. I don't feel so "way out there" now. LOL.
I saw that and thought of you but couldn't remember how you spelled your screen name to ping you!
And he is a trial lawyer.
This decision was made by a meeting in Rome of the Bilderbergers, that shadowy world domination group who covers and protects those it favors, for whatever reasons. They are not fully in control of every event on the planet, but they do know where to apply pressure and pull strings.
But maybe that is just an urban legend.
Funny...there's no mention of Kerry or Edwards premature deaths in these scenarios. In the Klintoon world, these are real events and have to be factored into discussions of when/if Hellery is going to run.
The only thing Bryant and I differ on, and is a big one, is whether choosing Edwards is Kerry's declaration of independence or a Clinton engineered selection. I still vote for the latter.
I'll sure vote with you.
I think the Democrats will do whatever it takes to regain power and although they'd like Hillary in '08, they aren't willing to put their power grab on hold for 4 years HOPING she will win in '08.
"...they aren't willing to put their power grab on hold for 4 years...."
I could not agree more. I just think they may have been outfoxed.
Yow. The smiling Edwards is highly reminiscent of Jack Nicholson as the Joker after too much time in the tanning booth.
Good looks would be a help, but looking to young is not and he does. Nor is being a trial lawyer. I would say he was not a good choice.
A common admiration of Judy Garland, Edith Piaf and Abercrombie and Fitch clothes?
I agree that it's a Clinton thing, but with some different perspectives:
On the Kerry thing, I think he picked Edwards pre-emptively to prevent the former President from foisting his spouse on the ticket. Think about it, why would Kerry want a running mate where he would have to watch his back (oh, let's not delve into the dead Clinton aides and officials, but wouldn't you worry if you were Kerry?).
Politically and financially, it's been thanks in a large part to the Clinton machinery for bringing the organization together and the cash in, so the whole threat of the Hildebeeste on the ticket is at bay, temporarily.
If it's clear that Kerry will lose, then the ticket will stand. If his numbers go up, watch the news for stories undermining Edwards and embarassing him. She is no dummy, she keeps a plastic index card box with her at all times. She's the one who demanded the 900 FBI files illegally and she is probably using that info.
From there, either Edwards has to remove himself from the ticket and Hildebeeste is "drafted" or better yet, he stays and is blamed for a Kerry loss, which promotes Hildebeeste over Edwards in 2008.
Dems hate losers. While the Republican party has been known to recycle those who didn't win - think Nixon - the Dems aren't so charitable. Even the failures in the race for the number 2 chair don't get a second shot. If Kerry and Edwards don't win, it will be unlikely that either will come up again.
Clinton's don't lose. As much as I hate to admit it, the Demonic Duo from Dixie haven't lost anything they have run for since EARLY in Billy-boy's career. Governor, then President (twice), and then the she-beast gets into the Senate. No matter how bleak it looks for them, somehow they pull it out.
They OWN the Democratic Party. Terry McAwful is their guy. If the Hildabeast wants to be President, you can bet that they will bring all guns to bear on ANYTHING that stands in her way, including other members of her party.
All that being said. There are four possible outcomes in the upcoming election:
1. Big Bush Win
2. Tight Bush Win
3. Tight Kerry Win
4. Big Kerry Win
If Bush wins bigs it leaves only a small opening for the Beast. She will have to work with her friends in the media to make us believe by 2008 that America is the worst condition in 50 years. If Bush wins big and if Bush is able to be a success in his second term, Hillary will still run in 2008, but a win isn't a sure thing.
If Bush squeaks out a win, the Beast is in the driver seat. It will be 2000 all over again. Any judicial appointments will go through the wringer. No mandate. Hillary runs and wins in 2008.
If Kerry squeaks out a win, Hillary will have to either be happy being a Senator, or will have to torpedo his presidency in some nefarious manner. Being caught would end her career, but she still has a shot at the big chair. Kerry would have to be in the position of not being able to run again and whatever Kerry gets slimed with must rub off on Edwards. A long shot for 2008. A better chance in 2012.
If Kerry wins big, all bets are off. Hillary will be stuck in the Senate. The press will have an eight year love-fest. The Republicans will brush up on their golf game. There will be Socialized Medicine (authored by Hillary), a top tax rate of +50%, rampant inflation (ignored by the press), increasing unemployment (also ignored), a formation of a nuclear powered Islamic Super-state, an adventurous China will take Taiwan, the Koreans will be "unified" under the North, unfettered illegal immigration will lead to the formation of Latino Terrorist groups fueled by drug money (flowing because the drug laws will not be enforced) who want the Southwest US to be either independent or part of Mexico, and many other ugly consequences too depressing to list.
The best shots to keep the Beast out of the White House is for either side to win BIG. The only scenario that is good for America is a BIG Bush win. Please point this out to your conservative friends who aren't thrilled with Bush and are threatening to stay home on November 2nd...
what the Hillary in '04 and '08 theorists (myself included) have failed to seriously consider is the possibility that maybe Hillary wants to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
he is hardly the ideal choice for the reasons you stated (amongst others) but my opint is that he was the best available.
Herself HAS reserved the option of going for the Supreme Court. This is the fallback position if the Presidency appears to be a closed door.
But to push Herself into position, two conditions must prevail: That a Democrat, regardless of whom it may be, is elevated to the White House, by whatever means, and Herself must be careful not to alienate this Democrat regime so much that consideration for nomination to Supreme Court is foreclosed. These things must be done delicately. Much like the Wicked Witch of the West in Wizard of Oz.
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.