Let's examine this scenario a little further.
Being as far left as Dean is, a total 50 state rejection has to have repercussions on Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House (being that she's as far left as Dean), as well as Daschle's position (assuming he survives his own election). A 50 state loss has to also include more losses in the Senate and the House from coattails. McAuliffe already has the defeat in 2002, and 3 out of 4 governships in 2003 at his feet.
Why would the party consider keeping Clinton/McAuliffe after that string of losses? What would an iron-clad fist around the reins of the DNC by Clinton/McAuliffe, in light of that record and with four more years of Bush, say to the masses within the Democrat party? When will they say that enough is enough?
-PJ
For one reason only--$$$.
Hillary Clinton shows up anywhere and she can rake in millions. No other Democrat, even her husband, can generate that fund raising prowess.
If Dean loses big, Democrats will be so deperate they will blindly grab for any life line. Hillary will be there posing as their savior.
Dean will put his own people in BEFORE his historic loss. After the loss comes the purge. That's when the Clinton people move back into power. It won't be good for the party in the long run, but it will be good for the Clintons in the short run. And in the short run, Democrats will fall for it. Enough won't be enough until they hit the wall. Then it will be too late...