2004 Year in Review

The Race for 2008 is On...

The political focus of the nation during these early months of 2004 is on the Democratic primaries in the various states North, East, South, and West. Network and cable news pundits forecast, clarify, and question the status of the candidates with their rise and fall in the ‘latest’ poll – and the polls are subject to change within the hour along with the sage analyses of the Rathers, Jenningses, Brokaws, O’Reillys, Matthewses, Humes, and the myriad other savants of the airwaves.

But a few things are clear. The Democratic party is in the throes of trying to ‘rediscover’ itself, a process it’s gone through several times since its inception with the Jeffersonians two hundred years ago. Whether it’s agrarian or industrial in its outlook, it has always had differing factions within its ranks.

Often the dissenting factions are too weak to carry the party faithful, but at times, a faction here or a faction there wins the upper hand, if only temporarily. History points this out in the Adams – Jackson confrontations in the 1820s, the divisive split between the northern and southern wings of the party prior to the Civil War, the populist takeover of the party by the Bryan forces at the turn of the last century, and the McGovern influence on the party since the 1970s, to name a few decisive – and divisive – turns in the party’s fortunes.

Today, the Democratic Party is in disarray again – with at least three factions competing for the hearts and minds of its constituency. First, we have the ‘old guard’ represented by the patriarch of the party, Ted Kennedy. Liberal, with roots in the Roosevelt tradition, this wing has anointed John Kerry as its standard bearer. He has received the blessings not only of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary but of the grand old man himself.

Second, we have the ‘outsider’ represented by Howard Dean and the young Turks of the Democratic Party. Dean doesn’t have the charisma or political wherewithal to capture the nomination. His intemperate display following his poor showing in Iowa put a damper on his fortunes for the time being. Whether he can recover sufficiently to regain a positive momentum within the party is questionable. He has, however, put a scare in the camp of the third faction, the Clintonian Democrats.

The Clintonian Democrats do not want a Democratic presidential victory in 2004. This faction, for whom General Wesley Clark is a surrogate candidate, is eager to concede the 2004 election to George Bush. They know the best way to assure Bush’s reelection is for one of the standard party candidates, one of the ‘old guard’ candidates to win the nomination – that would be John Kerry, John Edwards, or Joe Lieberman.

What they fear the most is the sudden rise and success of an outsider such as Howard Dean. The Clintonians – Bill and Hillary, James Carville, Paul Bagala - are all too aware that Bill Clinton rode to the White House in 1992 on the white horse of the outsider. This faction of the party harkens back to George McGovern, not FDR, as their patron saint.

Wesley Clark’s main purpose in this campaign is to keep the waters roiling around Howard Dean – or any other Democratic candidate who appears strong and shows a potential to gather votes. He is backed by the Clintons, and he serves them well by taking the wind from the sails of other candidates, thus making 2008 safe for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. Why 2008?

The election in 2004 is George Bush’s to lose. He should win a second term without serious competition. No Democratic candidate is going to beat him when the chips are down in November, and the wise politicians know this.

A must-year is 2008 for the Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua. If a Democrat is elected in 2004, she has to wait until 2012 before she can run, barring any unforeseen circumstances. It’s in her interest, then, that a Democrat not win in 2004. Her year must be 2008, for if another Democrat - or Republican, for that matter - should win in 2008, then her year would be 2016, when she would be clearly past her prime.

A Hillary win in 2008 would vindicate the tepid presidency of her husband as well as rewrite the political handbooks, thus assuring both Bill and Hillary a unique chapter in American political history – and let there be no doubt, the Clintons are conscious of their places in history.

So, Wesley Clark is the willing, inept front man for the Clintons. He will stay in the race for the Democratic nomination for president to the degree that Dean or anyone else poses a threat to the Clinton strategy for 2008. He will continue to say what he wants without fear of political fallout. He will continue to associate himself with the likes of Michael Moore and make outlandish claims that Bush “failed to do all he could to prevent 9-11.” He is, in reality, a non-candidate, a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Who will win this struggle to take the Democratic Party back to political dominance? The Kennedy faction? The Clinton faction? Or will it be a popular, grassroots organization?

While the election may go to George Bush, 2004 is another decisive year in the long, tumultuous history of the Democratic Party.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
January 25, 2004