An interesting thought from Robert Novak

In this story, Novak describes the chaos caused by Clintonites Joe Lockhart and Terry McAuliffe's involvement in shaping Kerry's fall campaign. Essentially, he argues that the pair distract voters from Kerry's message regarding Iraq, etc., etc.

Problem is, Mr. Novak never really asks the key question: "Why?"

It's an important question. Kerry is not seeing much traction with these guys (particulary newcomer Joe Lockhart). Neither Joe nor Terry are stupid -- they must recognize their actions are hindering, rather than helping, Mr. Kerry.

So why are they doing it?

I have a simple explanation -- though I am a bit reluctant to share it, given that I will probably be labelled a conspiracy theorist.

I think they are involved to see to it that, if the election is close, Kerry loses.

Why?

Simple. A 2004 Kerry Presidency would destroy the best hopes for Joe and Terry's patron family, the Clintons, of returning to the White House. Either Kerry would do well, and therefore be re-elected in 2008; or, he would do horribly, and set up a Republican landslide in 2008; or he would be mediocre, in which case 2008 is an even proposition as between Republicans and Democrats, but in any case, it would be Kerry, not Hillary Clinton, that would be the nominee.

Crazy, eh? Maybe. But explain to me why Joe Lockhart, Paul Begala, Terry McAuliffe, etc., etc., are not orchestrating this campaign nearly as effectively as we saw them do in 1992 and 1996?

Occam's Razor says we should keep it simple. The simplest explanation is that they are serving a master other than Kerry. Period.

So why does Kerry tolerate it? Again, keeping it simple -- he has no choice.

Terry McAuliffe is the DNC chair, like it or not. Kerry can do nothing about that until after the election.

The Clintons have the best network of fundraisers and activists in the country. Being President for eight years helps one develop such things. If Kerry wants ANY access to that critical network (particularly in the battleground states), he must work with the Clintons.

That means employing some of the Clinton's people, like it or no.

Now, that is not to say they are actively sabotaging the campaign. I don't think they are, and, were Kerry ahead by ten points or so, I think they would let it go (what choice would they have?).

But, nobody thought this would be a Kerry landslide. Everyone has believed it to be a close election. And, under those circumstances, Lockhart, et al., have an opportunity to go to extraordinary lengths to get Kerry elected -- or they can simply do what they have to without any special extra effort.

And so they do -- and the fact it undermines Kerry is ireelevant given their true loyalty to their patrons, the Clintons.
- posted by MrSpkr @ 10:35