The Children’s Hour (The Democrats' blueprint for victory in 2008 and beyond)

The American Spectator ^ | January 15, 2004 | Jay Currie

[quidnunc]

As Republican pundits from Bill Kristol to Andrew Sullivan try to muffle their glee at the prospect of Dr. Dean as the Democratic nominee, cool heads of the Democratic Party have long since made the following political calculation:

Proposition the first: Barring catastrophe, there is not the slightest chance of beating Bush in 2004.

The second: No serious person wants the sort of catastrophe which could leave Bush vulnerable or worse.

The third: No serious person will seek the top spot on the Democratic ticket facing almost certain defeat.

The fourth: Democratic Party activists — tin foil hats, Michael Moore fan club memberships, Moveon.org charter members, psych degrees, Boston, Berkeley, Seattle — have not had a presidential candidate since 1988.

Therefore: Time for Children's Hour.

[2banana]

By endorsing Dean, the pros are quarantining the activist wing for the real election in 2008. When Dean fights the good fight and loses -- big or small; but loses -- it will be a snap for Hillary, Al, and the rest of them to, shedding crocodile tears, hail him as the heart of the Democratic Party and then get on with the serious race for the 2008 nomination.

2008 is a long way away. I don't think either Clinton can keep their pants zipped or mouth shut for that long...

[evad]

These points are straight from Rush's show today. Either he got them from the Spectator or vice versa.

Either way, they make a lot of sense.

[T Lady]

I seriously doubt the 'RAT establishment will let Al out of his cage for 2008; I believe in endorsing Dean, there's a personal catfight going on between the Clinton and Gore camps.

-Regards, T.

[quidnunc]

evad wrote: These points are straight from Rush's show today. Either he got them from the Spectator or vice versa.

Rush was reading this article, which came online at midnight (EST) last night.

[Gorjus]

These points are straight from Rush's show today. Either he got them from the Spectator or vice versa.

Gee, and there's no way that they could have been invented independently. After all, the ideas are so stunningly original.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052000/posts?page=3#13

[TheGeezer]

What happens when Clark gets the nomination?

[expatpat]

I agree. But it raises an interesting and disturbing point. In 2008, the Democraps may well be choosing between Algore and Hitlary -- both dangerous nutcases, and a big danger to the nation if the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate.

[PogySailor]

Which Clark? The pro-war in Iraq / Saddam has WMD Clark or the anti-war in Iraq / Saddam had no WMD Clark?

[My2Cents]

Yeah, that was my thought. This article was written -- like over two days ago -- when Dean was still a shoe-in. I still have to believe, however, that the Clintons consider 2004 to be the GOP's year, and that their putting forth of Wesley is only intended to, hopefully for them, keep control of the DNC apparatus. This is one reason I actually hope Dean gets the nomination -- he will rip control of the DNC away from the Clintons. The other reason is that he will get killed by GW Bush.

[theFIRMbss]

>The Children’s Hour (The Democrats' blueprint for victory in 2008 and beyond)

The 'Rats "victory blueprint" is based on an old movie featuring a story about lesbian oppression and social cruelty?

[T Lady]

That's why I'm hoping, as I noted on another thread, the movers and shakers over at the RNC are going to put up a strong candidate, perhaps Guilliani (in 2008), or Jeb Bush (in 2012, or 2016, depending on the outcome of the 2008 election).

...And yes, you're right about Sen. Clinton and the former Vice President; the only differece being is Hillary is more of a danger to America than Al.

-Regards, T.

[hunter112]

What happens when Clark gets the nomination?

He's expendable. If he wrests the nomination away from Howie, then he helps the Clintons keep control of the Rat party. If he loses, his delegates still can keep their leadership (McAwful) from total meltdown. Either way, they can blame him for any losses.

And, if he should win, by some wild stretch of the imagination, or the untimely demise of President Bush, well, there's still the files on him to keep him in line. If he ever got close to the nomination, the Clintons would make damn good and sure that somebody they've got the goods on gets the Veep nod, then that person gets moved out after the 2006 NY Senate election, and Hillary becomes VP. Clark either steps down in 2008 for health reasons (dead being one possible reason), or his file gets made public, and he drops his run for re-election.

For the Clintons, its win-win-win, no matter how you look at it.

[Timm]

One thought too many. Never presume calculation when simple party dysfunction will explain what the Democrats are "doing".

Look, anyone who knows anything about politics knows you don't just "give up" the presidency for four years. So, no, establishment Democrats are not doing that. They want a candidate who can win, who can beat Bush. They're not happy about Dean's strength right now, and they may not love their other choices, but they've not given up. Would you, in their place? They still think Clark, or someone else has a chance to win. Get real.

I get tired of these too-clever-by-half, cynical "analyses". Sometimes politics doesn't involve deep diabolical calculation, so that the "real action" has to be revealed to us by clever writers. Sometimes it's just an ugly fight in public. And sometimes a party approaches an election with a weak hand. The Democrats have both issues right now.

Was the GOP just marking time with Dole in '96? Was it engaged in some supersmart calculation "really" to make its move in 2000? Sheesh.

[evad]

Rush was reading this article, which came online at midnight (EST) last night

Ahhh....that makes sense. I guess I missed the intro.

[Graymatter]

I don't know why so many people think a catastrophe would turn voters from Bush. If they mean a catastrophic terror attack, I think that would just notch up America's determination to proceed along the Bush Doctrine lines.

What's the alternative? Softening? Who'd go for that?

[bayourod]

"I get tired of these too-clever-by-half, cynical "analyses".

I agree that you just don't give up the Presidency for four years.

The Dems aren't holding back to run Gore in 2008. He couldn't run this time because he didn't have the Clinton machine at his disposal.

Hillary isn't going to wait until 2008. She will be the candidate this year. She simply hasn't announced yet because she couldn't survive the type of aggressive personal campaigning that the others are having to engage in now. That is where Wes Clark comes in. He is the temporary stand-in for Hillary. He met the requirements to get on the ballot in all the primaries and has assembled the old Clinton campaign organization, using money raised by Bill & Hillary for him.

Just before the Southern primaries Hillary will allow herself to be drafted in order to save the party from the insane Howard Dean. Clark will bow out in favor of Hillary and announce that all votes for him will go to Hillary.

After the Southern primaries there will only be two candidates left and most of the campaigning will be through carefully controlled media appearances like she did in NY when she ran for the Senate.

Now that's the real truth.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

The Children’s Hour - Jay Currie

As Republican pundits from Bill Kristol to Andrew Sullivan try to muffle their glee at the prospect of Dr. Dean as the Democratic nominee, cool heads of the Democratic Party have long since made the following political calculation:

Proposition the first: Barring catastrophe, there is not the slightest chance of beating Bush in 2004.

The second: No serious person wants the sort of catastrophe which could leave Bush vulnerable or worse.

The third: No serious person will seek the top spot on the Democratic ticket facing almost certain defeat.

The fourth: Democratic Party activists -- tin foil hats, Michael Moore fan club memberships, Moveon.org charter members, psych degrees, Boston, Berkeley, Seattle -- have not had a presidential candidate since 1988.

Therefore: Time for Children's Hour.

The present Democratic Party is an uneasy coalition of naivete and sophistication, idealism and calculation. It manages to team smart union and city machine politicians with social activists and tree huggers. Black, lesbian, Burning Man attendees rub shoulders with fine old Savannah patricians who have yet to forgive Lincoln.

To maintain these alliances, the Party has to balance the necessity of achieving power with a willingness to act as a focal point for the assorted idealisms and group identities which represent a significant fraction of its electoral support and, perhaps, a majority of its activists.

For the professionals -- the Clintons, the Gores, Bill Bradley and so on -- real power matters. To attain power, the professionals know they have to keep the amateurs committed without actually inviting them to the table.

Thus: Howard Dean.

The doctor and his supporters are the last in a string of no-hopers stretching back to Gene McCarthy and running though George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.

By endorsing Dean, the pros are quarantining the activist wing for the real election in 2008. When Dean fights the good fight and loses -- big or small; but loses -- it will be a snap for Hillary, Al, and the rest of them to, shedding crocodile tears, hail him as the heart of the Democratic Party and then get on with the serious race for the 2008 nomination.

And make no mistake: 2008 is a genuine opportunity for the Democrats. Bush will be gone with no obvious successor. If the economy is booming there will be room for arguments about redistribution, if it tanks, the Republican record of deficit spending will be ripe for attack. No matter how well the War on Terror and Iraq go, the public will be tired of orange alert after alert.

But the American electorate as a whole will not be the least bit interested in an anti-war, multi-lateralist, tax-raising Democrat in the Dean mold. Dem pros know this and are working hard to position the party to take full advantage of Bush's departure. Which means sidelining the activists and running a candidate who can win.

The pros also know how big the stakes are in 2008. It may be the last best chance of stopping the Republicans from becoming the natural governing party. And a damn close-run thing it will be. If the Democratic activists defected to a resurgent Green Party in any numbers -- and Dean implicitly suggested that if he did not win his supporters would find a new home -- the Republicans will further entrench their still-shaky majority status.

So, while Republican bigs may relish a real fight, with real positions, over the next ten months, the Democratic pros have moved on. The kids are going to have their chance -- as they do every generation -- to run a big-time campaign on their most heartfelt issues. They'll have enough money to make it feel like the real thing and they will even have professional politicians endorsing their candidate.

And when they lose, the pros will be able to say, "You did a great job. Really. Now, anyone who has learned anything come onboard." If the Children's Hour works, former Deanies, older and a bit chastened, will realize winning, not ideological purity, is what matters in politics. And the Democratic Party will have seasoned another generation of pros.

_________________________________________

Any reason why this article does NOT deserve a full posting? FReegards,

- ConservativeStLouisGuy