Posted on 11/30/2003 9:22:53 PM PST by NewLand
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 10:19 p.m. EST
Panetta Warning Reveals Widening Dean-Clinton Rift
Yet another Clinton insider is openly criticizing his party's presidential front-runner, Howard Dean, warning Democrats that the ex-Vermont governor is far too liberal to defeat President Bush in next year's election.
"There clearly are concerns about Dean's ability to appeal to the entire country, particularly on national security issues," former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta told the Washington Times on Friday.
"How can you compete with President Bush on the national security front? There is some concern about whether Dean can rise to the occasion on this issue," Panetta told the paper.
In his warning about Gov. Dean, Panetta hinted that he was carrying a message authored by his former boss, ex-President Bill Clinton. The former White House chief of staff acknowledged that he speaks regularly with the ex-president, who is said to be concerned about Dean's candidacy.
Panetta's comments follow closely on the heels of an attack on Dean by top Hillary Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, who complained to Time magazine two weeks ago that the Vermont governor was "quick of lip, and quick of temper and stubborn."
Ickes also criticized Dean for repeatedly telling audiences that he wants to win support from Southerners who drive pick-up trucks sporting Confederate flags, grousing, "In another time, the Confederate-flag story would have taken him down the drain."
The deepening opposition within the Clinton camp to the candidate least likely to beat Bush has confounded those who say the former first couple actually want Democrats to lose in 2004 in order to give Mrs. Clinton a better chance to win the White House herself by running for an open seat in 2008.
Some say the Clintons' anti-Dean maneuvering shows one of two things:
Either they actually want to see Democrats win in 2004 [a development that would shut down Mrs. Clinton's presidential ambitions till 2012]. Or Bill and Hillary are stacking the deck for a presidential draft sometime before next July's Democratic convention.
"Dean people had better check out the campaign planes..."
I was just thinking that today when I was reading some old Ron Brown articles...
BTW...When are you going to "address the nation" again? That was one of my favorite FR posts of all time...
All true, but the key factor is that the official party candidate gets to choose the DNC Chairman...if Dean gets the nomination he will clean house...and the clintons cannot afford to lose McAuliffe...and thus lose control of; the $$$, the lie machine, and did I mention the $$$?
Panetta reminds me of the joke about the man who, upon reaching legal age, changed his name from Mr. Arthur Penis - to Mr. Art Penis. He has serious concerns about a left-wing, draft-dodging, anti-war candidate from the sideline state of Vermont, and instead preferred a left-wing, draft-dodging, anti-war candidate from the sideline state of Arkansas.
The DNC has no money. Hillary has her own money. She's a big fundraising draw for other candidates. Plus they have that Ickes/Soros ACT soft-money group.
My suspicion is that even if McAwful gets canned, the Clinton folks permeate the DNC so they'll still be "in" there, if not in technical control.
The fight between the Clinton's and Dean are just gearing up .. should be interesting
I'm sick of editorializing in reporting, from any source. The idea that a winning Democrat in 2004 would "shut down" Hillary's presidential run for 2008 is an opinion. And I think nonesense.
This would assume a great first administration and an easy victory for the Dem candidate in 2008? Why? What if it is Dean and he fails miserably? Hillary would run against him in the primary in 2008 and be treated like a centrist and another John McCain, blah, blah, blah.
And she'd gain more power in the Senate amongst the minority and win reelection probably in 2006 and maybe even become Minority Leader. This would again solidify the perception of a centrist that would "save" the Dems in 2008 from the far left wacko in the White House. And you still have Billy out there yapping his gums.
I don't buy into the "conventional wisdom" that a Dean or Clark or even Gephardt winning in 2004 would lock her out until 2012.
I believe you're mistaken. The nominee does not get TOP SECRET briefings unless they win the general election thereby making them the President elect. As an unelected nominee of the party they don't get any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
Possibly. But if the Grand She-Cyclops instructs them to think differently, many might have a sudden change of opinion. It really IS all about power.
Prairie
NEITHER of these hypotheses makes much sense if you're in favor of a President Hillary. The former is loony for all the obvious reasons. I agree with the poster above that said there's no theoretical reason why Hillary couldn't beat a weak incumbent Dem president in 2008, but I strongly disagree that the Clintonistas would even be considering such a ploy, because it's simply never happened in modern political history. When the public gets fed up enough with a first-term president to toss him out, they toss him out for his opponent from the other party, because the incumbent's party always sticks by their guy. (Even Fat Ted couldn't steal the RAT nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Carter was just about the most hapless, vulnerable first-term president that's existed in any of our lifetimes.) The only way that even Queen Hillary could steal the 2008 nomination from an incumbent RAT is if that given president turned out to be so stunningly inept at the job that America by 2007 was in the midst of a second Great Depression, continual riots in the streets and regular inside-the-homeland terrorist attacks all at the same time. And let's face it, we all know Kucinich isn't going to be elected in November 2004. ;)
As for the second scenario: There's just not going to be any DNC convention draft, unless no one candidate goes into it controlling enough delegates to win on the first ballot ... and that is a) EXTREMELY unlikely (it hasn't happened for decades, due to changes in the primary system that make it almost impossible for convention time to come around without SOMEONE having locked up enough delegates), and b) something the Clintonistas don't have any particular control over. A lot of people don't seem to understand that the conventions of today are not like the conventions of fifty years ago. Today, delegates in almost all states are legally required to vote for their chosen candidate on the first ballot, so if Dean - or anyone else - goes in with a majority, he gets the nomination automatically, and the entire rest of the convention is nothing but a three-day-long orgy of free political advertising (or bad press, depending on how they comport themselves).
I think what's really going on here, while sneaky, is really quite simple: The Clintonistas know that Dean's a bullheaded jerk who doesn't like being told what to do by anyone, and especially doesn't like being told what to do by scumbag Clintonistas, who he hates about as much as we do. So the Hillary crowd is just prodding Dean; they believe (probably correctly) that if they tell Dean to be more moderate, that just makes him all the more likely to stay the hard-left course. Which, of course, will guarantee a Bush victory and leave 2008 open for Hillary.
Very prophetic words that we may hear again and again.
I definitely think you are onto something. Considering that approach, everything that is happening now suddenly makes sense.
I can think of no other reason for her Thanksgiving travel/photo-op.
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.