Dem Losers United: We Back Dean!

Former basketball star and slouchy senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley this morning threw his support behind Howard Dean, thus joining Al Gore in giving a double-kiss-of-death to the Democratic frontrunner.

In the best political tradition, Bradley, who challenged Gore unsuccessfully for the Dem nomination four years ago, characterized Dean as an extension of himself:

"When Governor Dean says that his campaign is more about his supporters than about him, he shows admirable modesty, but he sheds light also on why his campaign offers the best chance to beat George Bush…That is, he has tapped into the same wonderful idealism that I saw in the eyes of Americans in 2000, and he has nourished it into a powerful force."

Here's a longer account.

The endorsement may help Dean, though it's far from clear whether Bradley carries any juice with anyone outside of his immediate family and a couple of old Knicks teammates, much less voters in the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary. It certainly doesn't hurt Dean--that would likely take an endorsement from the likes of Mike Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, and Jimmy Carter.

An interesting question raised by all of this is when Bill Clinton will anoint someone. The conventional wisdom is that he's leaning toward fellow Arkansan Wesley Clark, who's supposedly within the Clinton Democratic machine. But if it's true that Hillary is definitely running in '08, then you've got to figure Bill wants the Dems to lose this time around.

Comments

[Rebecca]

I'm just dismayed at Bradley identifying hatred, despair, and vituperation as "nourished idealism". The bigger the anger and hatred, the larger the potential damage if there is no appropriate channeling of it.

[Shultz]

Slick Willy wants the Democrats to lose this time around? You bet!

Who thinks that any of Democrats, who are currently trying to out McGovern each other, have a good chance this cycle? Everyone who thinks that Dick Cheney will run in 2008, raise your hand!

So, it's likey that Hillary won't have to run against an incumbant in '08.

And by then, most people will have forgotten that she helped cover up the use of the FBI to investigate her husband's political opponents and that she tried to create the world's biggest entitlement program--in secret. Most people will have forgotten that she wrote the legal documents in a real estate investment scam that robbed the taxpayers of money that was intended for the "widows and orphans" who lost their life savings in a corrupt S&L, money that later turned up in her husband's campaign fund. Most people will have forgotten that she somehow had the foresight to make a HUGE bet on the futures market that paid big, but somehow the trade was credited to her account after the close of trading for the day.

Oh, and most people will have forgotten that although no one contests the facts of the aforementioned events, they were excused under the premise that she didn't know about...not one but...ALL of the above events at the time they were happening.

In 2008, most people won't remember any of that, but I'll be there to remind everyone that will listen.

P.S. Hillary stinks.

[joe]

Conpiracy theories revolving around the Clintons need their own Dewey Decimal number.

[Zathras]

That's no lie, Joe. Bill Clinton does want a Democrat to win this year. He just doesn't think it's very likely, and he's right.

The thing people forget about Clinton is that he is the very sharpest observer of campaign politics out there. He would have endorsed Dean by now if he thought it likely that this would help Dean beat Bush. It wouldn't; it would only alienate anti-Dean Democrats. Bradley and Gore, much less able strategists than Clinton, both hold with the conventional wisdom that getting behind one candidate as early as possible is the one way to win next November.

They are wrong, and the reason they are wrong is not hard to see. A Democrat wins this year only if the economy tanks and we suffer a major terrorist disaster (or, perhaps, very high casualties in Iraq), and the Democratic nominee doesn't act such a fool that people are afraid he will makes things worse. Only the last condition has anything to do with the campaign, any of the major Dem candidates can fulfill it if they are reasonably careful, and it doesn't matter if the nominee is determined in January or March.

As far as which candidate Clinton would prefer, I'm sure Clark is further toward the top of his list than Dean is. Personal preference doesn't enter into his refusal to endorse anyone at this point, though.

[Shultz]

Theory?

Which accusation is a theory? ...and before you answer, look up the word theory.

The sitting governor of Arkansas went to jail. The FBI files were in her office. She made money on after hours trades. Those are facts.

Where's the theory?

[Kent]

Holy crap, what bullshit. Of course Clinton wants the democrats to win this election. He's a fricking human being who believes in what's good for his country.

I can't respond anymore to this twaddle without breaking into a serious case of the swear words.

Jesus. Moron.

[Rebecca]

Hmm. What Schultz said about Hillary is true. There are a lot of things in her background that are sufficient to convince someone that she cares more about herself and her pet theories than she does about obeying the law or being an ethical person. Read "Hell to Pay" by Barbara Olson and "Unlimited Access" by Gary Aldrich. These are books written by reasonable people in a reasonable (i.e. not polemical or hysterical) manner, relying on facts and on public records, and on the behavior of Mrs. and Mr. Clinton.

I view Hillary Clinton as an enemy to America's government and way of life. And this emotion differs from the "I hate Bush!" crowd because it is not an emotional reaction based solely on ideological difference, but is based on her life, her actions, her history all indicate a ruthless woman who craves power. And I don't say these things unless I've researched quite thoroughly. What I find disappointing is that relatively few people have taken a long hard look at Hillary's life and words, out of the misguided notion that doing so would indicate lack of trust. Darn it, we should be skeptical of those who want to be in power - it's prudent!

>>rant of the day

[Don]

"Conpiracy theories revolving around the Clintons need their own Dewey Decimal number."

Mention facts to a Democrat and he thinks 'conspiracy theories'. No wonder the Dems are tanking.

[Your Republican Grandma]

Wow! A sitting president using the FBI for his own poltical ends? Amazing! A well-connected business women using her connections to rig trades in the futures market? Really? An unscrupulous lawyer taking advantage of the S&L's in the 80's? Never! Crafting huge pork-laden entitlements in secret? Bush and Cheney would never do such a thing!

Then, my god, she proclaims her innocence! Unbelievable!

Shocking...abosultely shocking. Tssk, tssk. And I thought politicians were such good moral upstanding people!

[anon]

Did you ever think that Bill has offered to anoint a candidate or two, and said candidates shrieked and ran away in terror, rather than accept the offer?

[R. C. Dean]

Clark is definitely the Clinton stalking-horse this time around. He certainly fills their main requirement - there is no way on earth he can win the general election.

Of course, Dean also fills that bill. Howeveer, Dean plans to take control of the party away from the Clintons if he wins the nomination. The reason the Clintons are backing Clark is they want to keep control of the party for Hillary!'s run in 08. The primary battle is at least as much about who controls the Dem party as it is anything else.

[Will Spencer]

I am happy, but not in any way surprised, to see the Democratic Party done in by its own internal politics.

However, that brings up the question:

Who will the Republicans run in 2008?

[Zathras]

I was hoping to defer that question for another year at least. Not that long ago the Republicans had a number of elected officials who not only had political bases of their own but also had the knowledge and experience to serve effectively in the White House. I'm not sure this is true any more. Republican candidates in 2008 are likely to be distinguished most of all by their suitability as candidates, meaning that before anything else they will have to have high name ID before the race starts and be able to raise large amounts of money by whatever means they can -- essentially the George W. Bush formula for success in the 2000 election all over again.

The obvious possibility is Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Other potential candidates are Senate Majority Leader Frist and New York Governor Pataki, though I think each of these men has a higher opinion of his potential appeal to Republican activists than he ought to. NSA Condoleeza Rice has also been mentioned, largely I think for the novelty value of a black, female Republican candidate and for her close personal ties to President Bush. Conceivably Republican efforts to find a consensus candidate will fail, and the various factions within the GOP could end up fighting for dominance.

[MJ]

"The thing people forget about Clinton is that he is the very sharpest observer of campaign politics out there. He would have endorsed Dean by now if he thought it likely that this would help Dean beat Bush."

The Clinton legend lives on, despite all evidence to the contrary. While Clinton may have won and retained the top job for himself and another for his wife, his record on getting fellow Democrats elected has been abysmal. If he were such a campaign genius, there would have been no GOP Congress and there would have been a Gore presidency. A Clinton political endorsement tends more to be a kiss of death than a breath of life for your typical Dem candidate.

Also, Clinton has not endorsed Dean because Dean is running specifically as an anti-Clinton Democrat. Dean has unequivically stated he will remove Clinton's people (McCauliffe) from control of the party. A Dean nomination is a loss for the Clinton wing of the Democrat Party.

[Don]

Clinton would sell out anyone if the price was right. After all, he is the Dem who signed welfare reform & the capital gains tax cut. He might have some 'principles', but they are up for negotiation . . .

[Don]

It seems that Arianna Huffington has thrown her hat in for Dean. Talk about bad omens . . .

[Rebecca]

To Republican Grandma:

Am I astonished that politicians do unethical and illegal things? No. Will I vote for someone who has committed crimes? Not if I can help it. Do I expect politicians to be innocent as newborn babes? Well..... I keep my eyes and ears open, then hope for the best and plan for the worst. After all, cynicism prematurely wrinkles the face. 😉