[Boundless]

The CST (see below) is hardly news, nor are speculations
on Eagleton/Torch/Carnahan moves.

Ballots are being printed (just ask Nader). It is too
late to change names, so we're essentially looking at
the Carnahan scenario.

The trouble with your gambit is Edwards->Clinton. The
problem with the DNC ticket for 2004 is Kerry. If
Edwards bought him nothing, Hillary will buy him less.

Kerry's cancer history gives him a credible 4F medical
deferment if he wants to take it, but my read of his
disconnected arrogance and sense of Ordained Destiny
to be JFK-II suggests he will not voluntarily step aside.

There's something to be said for the Dems trying to
narrow the loss, and avoid the collateral damage that
a GWB landslide would have on other candidates, but
even with that modest goal, does Hillary help?
___________________

CST: The Clinton Sabotage Theory*
* CST is an unregistered trademark of the VWRC
Edition: 2004-09-20 22:40

Executive Summary:
The Clintons want the 2004 Democrat candidate for President to lose, but by just a little, because a win would upset Hillary's plans.

The Long Version
When Clinton left office in 2000, he retained control of the DNC. I haven't made an exhaustive study of ex-presidents, but this strikes me as very unusual (but then so is having a First Wife with political aspirations of her own).

Terry McAuliffe (DNC chair) is a Clinton guy, as is most of the Committee.

At this time last year, Bush looked unbeatable, and Hillary decided not to run. They then had a problem. If Hillary was to run in 2008, they needed to:
1. avoid having a Democratic incumbent to shove aside, and
2. retain control of the DNC.

1. The incumbent problem is considerable. In a degenerate case, a Dem winner would go two terms, the VP would then take on Hillary as VP in 2012, and go on for two more, so Hillary couldn't run on her own until 2020 (assuming we even had credible elections after 16 years of modern Democrat rule).
    
2. A Democrat win in 2004 would give the new President the ability to wrest control of the DNC from the Clintons. Both Kerry and Dean indicated a desire to do just that, and with the power of the Presidency, they could.

So, this all meant that the Clintons needed to manage the primaries to produce a Designated Loser. Did they sabotage other candidates to ensure that Kerry would emerge? Beats me. I'll let other political analysts argue that.

Once their DL did emerge, however, they needed to "help" the DL, and ensure a loss - a narrow loss, but a loss.

The Kerry campaign is infested with Clinton people, many more just this month. Are they there to help Kerry, or Clinton? Concerned Democrats need to wonder.

When Kerry became the presumptive candidate early this year, one of his first initiatives was to fire McAuliffe. He was slapped down and forced to flip-flop within days. Just in case anyone was wondering who's in charge here.

Tinfoil hatters will tell you that absent the SBVFT and Kerry's own record/ineptness, the Clintons were probably ready to leak whatever it took to sink Kerry's boat (think: FBI files found in Clinton White House). Extreme theorists will also tell you that Hillary is secretly funding the SBVFT, so rely on your own conspiracy insights here.

However, it now appears that Kerry is self-destructing without Clinton help. Unfortunately, the shambles is shaping up to be a landslide. Ideally, the Clintons want a messy narrow loss, with lots of recounts, lawsuits and a 2000-like after-taste of "stolen election".

So the recent appointments in the Kerry campaign are probably are really intended to help Kerry, not to win mind you, just to narrow the loss, and position for 2008.

Has Kerry ever realized any of this?
Has Teresa?

[jocko12]

I do not think hillary can beat JEB.She has to much garbage to carry around.