Replies

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.