Analysis: Why Dean is good for Hillary [UPI Senior Editor has a 'Hillary' moment]

World Peace Herald ^ | February 8, 2005 | By Martin Sieff, UPI Senior Editor

[johnny7]

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean's capture of the Democratic National Committee chair is not the devastating setback for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., that many have assumed. On the contrary, it is likely to play dramatically into her hands if she chooses to seek the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The conventional wisdom claims that the Clintons opposed Dean's 2004 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination because they did not want to deliver the party to its more radical, combative elements. It was certainly the case that low-key, quietly ambitious Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a longtime close political ally of former President Bill Clinton, played the role of a Midwest Iago in helping Dean's self-destructing campaign skewer itself in his state's fateful caucuses a year ago. And it is also true that Sen. Clinton has resolutely taken middle-of-the-road positions among Senate Democrats in contrast to the fiery grassroots activism urged by Dean.

But it is still a full four years until the next presidential election, and for the next two of them Dean's and Clinton's political career tracks are going to be very different and look unlikely to conflict. After November 2006 they may even come together surprisingly effectively. Clinton's next major political goal is both crystal clear and highly attainable: to win re-election for a second Senate term in 2006 by an overwhelming margin. Right now, with the Republican Party in New York state in stunning disarray even by its own abrasive standards, that looks like a slam dunk.

Once that happens Clinton will have fulfilled her pledge during her 2000 election campaign to serve the people of New York through a full Senate term. She has been doing that highly effectively. And historically, many of the most successful presidential candidates and effective chief executives in U.S. history have decisively confirmed their standing on the national stage, not just by winning a governorship or a Senate seat, but by then getting re-elected by a decisive margin. That was the case for Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who both won two elections as governors of New York in 1928 and 1930 and California in 1966 and 1970. It was also true of current President George W. Bush, whose triumphant re-election for a second term as governor of Texas propelled him into prime position to win the GOP's 2000 presidential nomination.

But will Clinton run in 2008 as a Third Way centrist like her husband, or as a more polarizing, radical figure? That will depend on how the party does in 2006. For the midterm congressional elections will then bear Dean's mark as DNC chairman. And it is already clear that he is determined to emulate then-House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich of Georgia before the 1994 congressional elections by moving his party back to its grass roots and traditional values and by running a coordinated national campaign to reclaim a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. That ambition may be less of a pipedream than it appears. If President Bush's fiscal policies work reasonably well and the U.S. economy remains even in its current condition without any further significant upturn, Dean and the Dems don't have a prayer, whatever they try: The GOP superiority in organization, discipline, funding and media penetration will yet again carry all before it.

But if Iraq gets significantly worse, if a wider conflict, perhaps with Iran, erupts in the Middle East, and, most important of all, if the soaring federal deficit triggers a precipitous collapse of the dollar and flight of international central banks out of U.S. Treasury bonds, then having a focused, angry aggressive message is exactly what the Democrats will need in the campaign of 2006. It has not always been the case that when the party in power loses control of Congress in a midterm election that they have been kicked out of the presidency right afterwards. Harry S. Truman in 1948 and Bill Clinton in 1996 were both comeback kids who defied that easy prognostication.

But more often than not, it has indeed been the case that when a party in power loses control of the House in a midterm election, a devastating defeat in the next presidential race is coming two years later. That happened to Republicans in 1930 before FDR routed them in 1932 and to the Democrats when their 1950 congressional disaster was followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower's vast sweep in 1952. Conversely, when Bush and the GOP routed conventional expectations by increasing their House and Senate majorities in the 2002 midterm elections, the way was prepared for their confident, smooth-running and decisive re-election campaign last November.

For Clinton, therefore, having Dean radicalize the Democratic Party now poses no threat to her at all. Whether he succeeds or fails, she is looking at re-election in a walk for her second Senate term. But the overall results of the 2006 race will set the Democratic agenda and shape the party's grand strategy for 2008. If Deanism, as widely expected, is tried and fails, then Clinton will run in 2008 as the restorer of Democratic centrism, the Queen of the revived Third Way. But if the country should be plunged into crisis by 2006 and Dean's hard-charging approach restores the party to a power and credibility on Capitol Hill it has not known for 12 years, then Clinton, like another pragmatic and charismatic New York senator 40 years before, will move to the left and reposition herself with the anti-war left.

But unlike Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968, she will not have to play an indecisive Hamlet before entering the presidential fray. The results of the 2006 congressional elections will clearly show her which of those two roads, the centrist or the grassroots neo-populist, is the better for her. Far from standing in the way of Clinton's presidential ambitions, therefore, Dean, whether he likes it or not, appears fated to prepare the way for them.

His clear vision for the Democratic Party may fizzle and fail, in which case he will be remembered as another perennial loser like William Jennings Bryan or Adlai Stevenson, both charismatic campaigners who kept their party out of power in one presidential election after another. Or he may succeed brilliantly, and thereby establish himself as the prophetic precursor of a dramatic new era in U.S. political life. Either way, Clinton stands to reap the benefit.

(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)

[johnny7]

Comforting to know there are plenty of Senior Editors out there just waiting Hillary's coronation.

[mewzilla]

I hope they hold their breath while they wait :)

[Pondman88]

So basically, if the economy tanks everything is hunky dory for the Dems. Allright, now that is a battle cry!!!

[USA4ME]

It didn't matter who the DNC chair was going to be. By desiring the job, the person seeking it already knew they were going to be a sock-puppet for the Clinton's. So, Screamin' Dean is the new sock-puppet. All these left-wing nuts interchangable.

[ken5050]

They're already holding theire breath..it's call "inhaling"...what the author ignores that in 2006,Dean may "lead" the Dem party to another resounding defeat..

[Billthedrill]

But if Iraq gets significantly worse, if a wider conflict, perhaps with Iran, erupts in the Middle East, and, most important of all, if the soaring federal deficit triggers a precipitous collapse of the dollar and flight of international central banks out of U.S. Treasury bonds, then having a focused, angry aggressive message is exactly what the Democrats will need in the campaign of 2006.

Good Lord, what is this, an open admission that what's bad for the United States is good for the Democrats? Didn't they learn from the last election that this just isn't a winning ticket?

I look at it another way - Hill wants someone in place to take the rap for an anticipated Dem debacle in 2006, after which she will be in a position to put her own people there without opposition. Dean's a sacrificial goat.

[jveritas]

Very pathetic.

Instead of looking at Howard Dean taking control of the DNC as huge defeat for the Clintons, now the political pundits are making it as something good for Hillary Clintons.

Make no mistake about, the Clintons wanted to put their man as chair of the DNC and failed? Why did they fail? because they do not have the power that many people think they have. They lost, period.

If you think Kerry was killed by his flip flops then you have seen nothing yet when Hillary Clinton try to move to the middle. The 2004 election taught us few very important things:

1. A majority of the American voters are smart enough to see fake, lies, and flip flops.

2. The DLM (defeated liberal media) cannot protect the democrat liberal candidates anymore. They will be exposed by the new media (radio talk shows, Internet, Foxnews, etc..). In case of Hillary the radio talk shows are already destroying any attempt she is planning to make to the so called middle and try to fool people. She is caught red handed.

[jveritas]

Didn't they learn from the last election that this just isn't a winning ticket?

They are controlled by the left wing liberal kooks and there are too many of them. They cannot overcome them, period. It is over for the liberal democart party, it is over.

[johnny7]

?T?����?a?�t's been their game plan since 2000. Give Bill Clinton this... he could sling some sh_t... these guys just sh_t their pants!

If Republicans continue to pick up seats in 2006, Dean will be blamed and Hillary will 'seemingly' move towards the center. The press will be with her all the way.

Ultimately, if Republicans select a poor choice in 2008, Hillary can win... simple as that!

[CyberAnt]

And .. Hillary doesn't need the DNC for fund raising. She has other options already available to her - and already in fund raising mode.

[Digger]

If Republicans continue to pick up seats in 2006, Dean will be blamed and Hillary will 'seemingly' move towards the center. The press will be with her all the way. Ultimately, if Republicans select a poor choice in 2008, Hillary can win... simple as that!

You are correct. GW probably will blow the illegal issue. The Hildabeast tells us she will solve it. The pubbies don't have a war president anymore. Not only the MSM but the rest of the elite world wants us destroyed by this witch. I pray that all the people that voted for GW last election will work at twice the effort to get one more election for the conservatives. As I have said that when GW leaves there will not be a true conservative Supreme Court & The Witch will fill it with liberals.

[GVnana]

Comforting to know there are plenty of Senior Editors out there just waiting Hillary's coronation.

Indeed. I think I'll wait for Michael Barone's assesment on this one.

[Sonny M]

So, Screamin' Dean is the new sock-puppet. All these left-wing nuts interchangable.

Yea, but this sock puppet has been rolling around in poison ivy.

Deans rabid, and his thirst for revenge is going to make things fun.

[45Auto]

"the Clintons wanted to put their man as chair of the DNC and failed"

Yep. Dean's almost sudden rise to the top of the RAT heap in the campaign scared the hell out of the "Clinton Faction", run by Terry the Nutcake McAwful in the DNC. It was they who worked to scuttle Dean's candidacy. Even he is not so stupid as to not see that. Dean has no love for Hillary; quite the contrary. And now the far left nut jobs have taken over the RAT party leadership through Dean. Oh, its going to be a metaphorical blood bath with major overtones of self flagellation and in the end, another series of catastrophic losses in the mid-term elections in 2006. Dean is going top put in place the "lunatic fringe" in the DNC. I wonder if Joe Lieberman will switch to the Repubo Party?

[45Auto]

"But if the country should be plunged into crisis by 2006 and Dean's hard-charging approach restores the party to a power and credibility on Capitol Hill it has not known for 12 years, then Clinton, like another pragmatic and charismatic New York senator 40 years before, will move to the left and reposition herself with the anti-war left."

Lunacy, sheer lunacy.

[Don Corleone]

She has been doing that highly effectively.

Depends on your point of view I would say. In addition, history shows that Senators rarely get elected to the Presedency. With a few notable exceptions most of the presidents came from the ranks of governors or the executive branch.

[okie01]

Deans rabid, and his thirst for revenge is going to make things fun.

The Clintons torpedoed Dean. Might he be preparing to return the favor...???

[strategofr]

I see the Iraq question vs. the 2008 election somewhat differently. The voters did decide, on balance, to support Bush on Iraq in 2004, but that support will not last forever.

In my opinion, the Iraqis must have an effective army by 11/2008, or Hillary will probably win. I do not see the Repubs winning another election with US soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad and Mosul.

I think it will be OK if we are there, securing the borders against invasion for them, preventing infiltration, that kind of thing. Going in to provide some backup in the event of an intense insurgent push somewhere.

But we are going to have to retreat behind a screen of effective Iraqi troops by 11/2008 or the Repubs lose the election, in my opinion.

This will be difficult to do for one reason: the Iraqi gov't has so far lacked the political will to replace mediocre officers in the high levels of command with quality ones. The quality lower ranking officers are available. Through training the Iraqi troops, the US troops have learned who they are. But the Iraqi gov't is "sovereign," so we cannot appoint the officers we want. This information comes from the article "Change of Command: Marine Captain Trains Iraqi Colonel to Take Over Fight," in the Wall Street Journal, p. 1, February 24, 2005.

[Nick Danger]

This is stupid. The guy totally ignores the high probability that Dean is positioning himself for his own run in 2008, and that him having the keys to the Democratic Party machinery in the meantime is not a good thing for Hillary Clinton. It's a good thing for Howard Dean.

Dean doesn't have to anything nearly as dramatic as re-capturing the House or the Senate in 2006 to be perceived as a winner. If he can just stanch the losses, he'll be considered a success. To gain one seat in either house would be a Great Victory with the way things have been going for Democrats lately.

By 2007, Dean will have the state chairmen in his pocket; he'll have the big donors in his Rolodex, and he'll have Hollywood asking "how high" when he says 'jump.' The "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party will be screaming for him to run.

Dean is no idiot. If Hillary doesn't see that she is going to have to get past a very well organized and very well funded Howard Dean to get the nomination for herself, she's an idiot.