If Clark Is For Real— Hillary Isn't!

Face it, either Wesley Clark is a "stalking horse" for Hillary Clinton, or Hillary does not want to be President.

Sadly, whenever the Clintons are involved it's difficult to avoid considering conspiracies. This comes from someone not predisposed to buy into them. Those who scoff at such notions and attempt to dissuade us actually make subterfuge more plausible by their granting the Clintons blanket immunity. Frankly it's easier to accept that people are weaving nefarious schemes if they have a history of getting away with things, when others suffer for far less.

The dust had not settled over "ground zero" before the effort was underway to paint President Bush as being asleep at the switch and not preventing 9/11, though he had been in office for a few months and working with Clinton-era intelligence and many Clinton appointees. A firestorm of criticism erupted, which has yet to fully subside. But Bill Clinton has suffered not a bit for his failure to address a terrorist threat that was growing throughout his presidency, to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when there were many easy opportunities to do so, or, according to his onetime adviser Dick Morris, to be at all interested in terrorism.

The Bush administration has likewise been on the defensive for "trampling on civil liberties", forcing Attorney General John Ashcroft to embark on a coast-to-coast tour to dispel fears about an emerging police state. Critics say not even the library records of average Americans are safe from the Bush Gestapo, though no examples of abuse have been forthcoming. By contrast the Clintons possession of hundreds of confidential FBI files on prominent Americans and perceived political enemies garnered barely a shrug. And they paid no political price for the heavy-handed military tactics against the Branch Davidians.

In light of history, the mocking dismissals of the idea that Wesley Clark is a tool to pave the way for Hillary's presidential bid are of little consequence. In truth, an acknowledgement of history is not necessary. One need only accept the obvious.

Can anyone seriously argue that Hillary Clinton does not want to be president? Friend and foe alike accept that she does. And why shouldn't they? The Clintons readily admit it and the whole of the Democrat establishment speaks not in terms of if, but of when she will run. It was clear that Hillary had designs on the Oval Office even before her wayward hubby's second term ended. Her announcement that she would seek the New York Senate seat was widely, and correctly, seen as the start of her presidential bid.

Can it be argued that the Clintons do not control the Democrat Party? Like no president before him, Bill Clinton has retained party power. A testament to his sway is the survival of Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's handpicked DNC Chairman, even after he engineered a debacle in the mid-term elections.

While some might contend that Hillary's reluctance, thus far, to enter the 2004 presidential race is due to her "promise" to serve out her 6-year Senate term, the truth is that she has no desire to run against a George W. Bush that looks unbeatable. As this changes, so too will Mrs. Clinton's adherence to that promise. Bill is already making preparations by recently stating New Yorkers "would release her from her commitment," should she decide to run.

Can the Clintons truly want someone else to beat Bush? A new Democrat president immediately becomes the party's leader, pushing the Clintons out. In that event Hillary would be forced to run against an incumbent Democrat in 2008, a hopeless mission, or an incumbent Dem VP in 2012. By then Hillary would be much older and the Clinton power base a faded memory. This would be no less true with Wesley Clark in office.

How then to explain Mr. Clark? Bill has anointed him one of the "stars" of the Party. Clark's campaign is teeming with loyal Clinton political operatives, most of whom have spent their time since leaving the White House defending, or creating, the "Clinton legacy." Are we to believe that Bill, Hillary and their starry-eyed loyalists have suddenly abandoned the dream of a second Clinton presidency? Who's being naive?

Either the Clintons so admire Clark that they will forgo their ambitions, or the good general is meant to clear the field for Hillary, now or for 2008. Either Clark is for real, or Hillary is. Both cannot be true.

Lady MacBeth will never accept the position of Veep. Like her original in the Shakespeare play, her ambition is boundless. Unlike Lady MacBeth, however, Hillary! has no traces of conscience.

After the murder, Lady MacBeth said, "Out! Out! Damned spot," referring to the blood on her hands. Hillary! has never shown one whit of remorse for any of her depredations of other people, of her Party, of New York State, or of the nation.

With the same philosophy of at least keeping a murderer in jail until he's too old to be harmful, we need to keep Hillary! away from the White House (unless she has a valid Visitor's Pass) until she's too old and feeble to be dangerous.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Lessons for Iraq from General Washington, Major Andre, and Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler," discussion thread on FR. Article is also on ChronWatch.

Weasely Clark's job is to lose gracefully. Either he loses in the Primary, leaving a vacuum to be filled by Hillary!, or he loses in the general election, leaving the field free for Hillary! in 2008. In no way is it his mission to actually win.

The problem for Hillary! in 2004 is to prevent the emergence of a competing Democrat star. She can either do this by having Weasely Clark "suck up all the oxygen", as Dick Morris would say, or by taking the lead role herself.

Being a naturally cautious type, Hillary! is sending out Clark now, but will leave her options open to supplant him if he falters too early in the campaign. If Hillary! takes the lead role, her job will to run a high-minded campaign and lose gracefully herself, unless Bush falters badly and puts his neck across her chopping block. Then the real push will come in 2008.

So to re-cap, results acceptable to Hillary! in 2004 are (in order of desirability):

1. Hillary! wins in November
2. Weasely Clark loses gracefully in November
3. Hillary! loses gracefully in November
4. Rat-To-Be-Named-Later gets creamed in November, or
5. Rat-To-Be-Named-Later loses a close and bruising election in November.

Results unacceptable to Hillary! are (in order of undesirability):

6. Rat-To-Be-Named-Later wins in November,
7. Rat-To-Be-Named-Later loses well in November, and becomes the new standard bearer for the Democrat Party, or
8. Weasely Clark wins in November. This last scenario is only acceptable in as much as he would likely have Hillary! on the bottom of the ticket, and he is congenitally susceptable to plane crashes.

At this point, I would think we are cruising for a point somewhere between 2 and 3.

This is a pretty good article.

It does still ponder that question:
How then to explain Mr. Clark?

Lat Friday I posted a vanity Wesley, the Manchurian Candidate wherein I maintained:

Arkansas native Rhodes Scholar. Too obvious for words, just goose bumps.

Since he and Clinton met in the sixties for the first time, there has been plenty of time for unnoticed overlap.

The full list of Clinton cadre is running his show, one could almost say the “A” team. But this is a guy that was fired and somewhat dissed at the end of the administration. What’s up with that?

Actually, “taking a bullet” for the Clinton cause is a time honored sign of his most loyal sycophants. It explains some of my theory.

But what is this Manchurian Candidate being readied to do?

I have a theory that seems better than those given by the commentators on Fox and elsewhere.

Like the movie, it will happen at the convention. He will nominate Hillary to run as his Vice Presidential candidate.

“What (!?!?)”, you say. “Hillary doesn’t want that job.” Bear with me.

With an incumbent in office the odds of any defeat are small. Say what you will about the orchestrated media perception of diminished support, Bush is very strong. If Hillary were to run she faces probable defeat. If she doesn’t she is diminished by whomever does….If he wins. She is then out until 2012. Even with a Democrat defeat she is off the national stage.

However, a Wesley stalking horse with her as VP gives her the chance to:
Stay Senator
Keep her promise to serve her term
Avoid the problem of defeat in NY in 2006 as she will announce her 2008 bid in time to avoid running.
And yet take the national stage, this year and next, to ready her image for a 2008 run.
Be back in Washington on the off chance that Wesley wins if Team Bush stumbles
Possibly sit knowing Wes has baggage that will cause him to loose

So there you have it. Upon “activation” the Manchurian Candidate nominates Hillary.
The fix is in.

Likewise, IncPen and others had similarly early conclusions right after the announcement. The media is good for insight and inside knowledge, but for theorizing the Clintonian mind, nothing beats FreeRepublic for seeing the full depth with which they consider our political process as their playpen.

I would say your scenario sounds plausible, with the one problem that I don't think Weasely can sew up the nomination. He's just too unreliable. I think it's Weasely's job to fail sometime after completely paralysing the remainder of the Democratic field. The Party will then be left casting about for a replacement candidate, one of national stature, one who can hit the ground running and already has experience with a winning Presidential campaign.

And it won't be Algore.

But if I am wrong and Weasely turns out to be a better candidate than I give him credit for, I think your scenario sounds good. Hillary! as a losing VP candidate will leave her as the head of the party. Weasely will suffer the fate of all electoral losers and be quickly consigned to the dumpster, but the stink of losing will not stick to Hillary!. Or perhaps it will be masked by other, stronger smells.

I would just add a couple of potential twists to your scenario. Assuming if all goes according to plan, but Bush falters badly and looks beatable, I would expect Hillary! to sieze the reigns sometime after the Democratic National Convention. Or perhaps The Manchurian Candidate scenario is even more closely congruent than we dare fear...

In any case, if Bush's re-elect numbers drop to below 45% any time after the nominating conventions, I would not sell Weasely Clark life insurance, or, under any circumstances, share a plane with him.

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.