View Single Post
  #1   Report Post  
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT--What happens when Dean becomes the third party candidate?

Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of
hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate
left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing,
would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain
control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an
intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are
two stars in the Democratic Party - Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity
hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore
mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought
in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any
defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will
have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr.
Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are
lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new,
handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught
economics at West Point.

I admired Nato Commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were
slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter
gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided
with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign
was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years
later, U.N.-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was
there last week saying "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold
Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his
defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House";
challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank,
equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by
telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the Congressional
resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised
candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I would never have voted for war."

Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get
into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put
himself in the hot-pretzel position - softly twisted.

Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal
discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable
candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the
sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control
of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the
respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush
becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to
accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and
win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the
Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and
diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the
Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think
they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party,
rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to
Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are
not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic
version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next
eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian
version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to
the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?

-------------------------------------------------------------

A better question is "how will Dean like being politically maneuvered into
irrelevancy by the Clintons...and will he launch a third party candidacy out
of spite?" If Hillary runs, you can bet on it. If Clark runs without
Hillary, Dean will be a good little soldier and sit on the sidelines.