U.S.: Cleaning ground for monkey to roll on

I'm on the road today checking in on campus, job hunting, doing all manner of strange and wonderful things to stay alive. So, news and opinions will be posted a bit later than usual today.

There's a good bit to talk, opine, ramager about. Hey, you got news, I got an opinion. As usual, a little bit of U.S. stuff gets tossed into the mix.

There's a despicable story budding about John Effin Kerry. Something about an intern. Nasty politics. Wes Clark put the story out, sort of confidentially, fer sher. I can't stand the best bone in Kerry's body. In my opinion, he's a sanctimonious, pompous, self-promoting wind-sucker. I don't like his policy positions (what the hell they are, nobody knows cuz he's a weather vane); I don't like his actions after Viet Nam cuz he stained the entire U.S. military by his lies; and, I don't like his arrogance and disdain for the common man, Joe Six-Pack. John Effin Kerry has demonstrated that he's too good to stand on line to be served. Nevertheless, politics ought to be about issues. Character counts, true, and the public has a right to know the true character of the man they're voting for. I personally believe that a man who cannot be faithful to his wife is a man of poor character, and his fidelity to all his public oaths are to be called in to question. (That's what you get from having A Man For All Seasons as one of yor favorite plays.) However, I still don't like this kind of political dirt. If you're going to accuse a man of a thing, be man enough to do it to his face, and let him deal with it instead of killing him with a thousand little cuts.

Who's cleaning ground for what monkey to roll on? Most likely the Clintons. Why, you ask? You just hate the Clintons, you say. No, I don't hate them; I just find them despicably low rent.

Here's the play the way I see it. Screamin' Howard Dean had a nice thing going, raising lots of money via the web. If Dean is successful and makes it to the White House, chances are Hillary won't be able to run until 2012. Is America going to elect some 65 year old dame to be president, especially a leftist dame? Not at all. Hillary wants the road clear for 2008 when George W. Bush, because of constitutional limitation, will have to leave office. In 2008, the floor will be wide open cuz there's no incumbent. So, the Clinton's run Wes Clark as an alternative to Dean. Clark is supposed to be hot stuff; he's a general, which gives the Dems the chance to say they're not anti-military. Clark has this little problem that would sink his chance of being elected. He doesn't know squat outside of the military; he was a registered Republican or Independent until October-November; and, worst of all, his own in the military have a profound distaste for him. They wouldn't trust him farther than they can throw him. This means that a Clark candidacy would leave President Bush's re-election certain. Then, something unforeseen occurs. Kerry wins in Iowa cuz Dean wasn't as good as he looked; Dean implodes; Clark, who never took part in the Iowa primaries, is left standing on the back foot, and John Effin Kerry steps into the breach. The equation was changed to the max. With Kerry in the picture, Dean on his way out, Clark out in left field, suddenly, Hillary's future in the White House seemed a bit too distant. Why?

Well, Kerry, supposedly, has "electability." He's a Viet Nam vet with a "chestful of medals"; he looks presidential (I personally think that he looks like Lurch on the Munsters or the Addams Family, whichever); and, he makes the effort to sound presidential (the guy talks in these rolling paragraphs. That he doesn't say much and that his speech patterns are all falling cadences -- which make him boring as hell -- these are discounted). Superficially, Kerry looks electable; he's attacking the hell out of GWB; so, Democrats hold their noses and, voila! Kerry looks like he's got the Democrat nomination for the presidency locked up.

So, Clark is out; Dean is still dealing with the fall-out from his I Have A Scream speech; Edwards is going nowhere; and, the rest aren't worth mentioning. Kerry, therefore, is a threat because it is possible he can defeat the incumbent and might occupy the White House from 2004-2012. Bad, bad, bad. What to do? Leak a story that can sink his chance of getting the nomination even though he has the majority of delegates to the Democrat convention in August.

Well, the Republicans could've leaked it. True, they could have. Here is why the Republicans did not. There is no advantage to the Republicans to leaking the story about Kerry now. The wiser course of action there would have been to wait until Kerry had the nomination locked up fer sher; wait until the convention is over and then bust the mark. What can the Democrats do then? Not much. They've got their guy tainted; his personal proclivities in addition to his post-Viet Nam anti-war activities would deny him the White House in November. So, a late leak would've been a slam dunk for the Republicans. The argument against this is that if the Republicans leak the story, the media and the Dems would rally around John Effin Kerry, and the press would wail about "those mean wascally Republicans." So, it was in the interests of the Republicans to keep their mouths shut. More importantly, George W. Bush is not the kind of guy to run with this kind of story. Bush has repeatedly said that he does not attack people; he deals with the issues. Bush is the one who has declared the onset of a gentler, kinder tone in Washington; he is the only one who has been maintaining that tone. Moreover, Bush takes his Christianity very seriously, and such a scurrilous smear campaign would, I think, violate his sense of what is right and just, even for a political campaign. I think Bush is a brilliant campaign strategist, but not necessarily a dirty one.

Therefore, it is most likely that the Democrats leaked it. Why? This story changes the equation. Suddenly, Kerry does not look so electable after all. Who's going to rally around him if the story comes from within his own party, which has had eight years of an impeached, perjurous, womanizing, oath-breaker at its head? Chances are, the long knives will come out, and Kerry, much bloodied, will be looking at his wife, Theresa, and saying, "Et tu, Therese?" I mean, the lady has promised to maim an unfaithful husband.

Thus, though Clark continues to be out (was he ever a serious candidate, or was he there as a distractor and divider? Was this the true and sole purpose of his candidacy?), Dean is still in play, and so is Edwards because Kerry's blood is in the water, and these two sharks are circling. However, neither of these two have a snow-ball in hell's chance of the actually winning the presidency. America is a nation at war; no matter what the Democrats think, America will not elect anybody who does not have a firm and clear stand on national security. If Kerry is compromised as a candidate, who then can the candidate be, especially since President Bush seems to be vulnerable because of Democrats and the media harping on about his Viet Nam-era service in the Air National Guard? Suddenly, that prolonged attack about President Bush being AWOL, and the goal post shifting that accompanied it, seems to have a new purpose.

So, who can benefit. Hillary Clinton. Even though Kerry might have the majority of delegates, the conventioneers can still refuse to nominate him to be the Democrat presidential candidate in August. Yes, indeed. How can Hillary benefit. Hillary has been running an interesting race from the Senate. She has made sure not to make any odd-ball, anti-war comments; she has supported the President on the Iraq War, and voted for the funding of the troops. Hillary can say she can be trusted with America's national security because she is not anti-military, and she will continue to prosecute the war on terror.

Therefore, with Kerry neutered by his intern scandal, the way is clear for Hillary -- whom the polls have consistently shown to be the most favored Democrat candidate for the nomination -- to be that candidate and challenge George W. Bush for the White House, since the prevailing view might be that Bush has been weakened by attacks that were intended to weaken him. Hillary benefits because she would get the nomination without having to undergo the rectal examination that the primaries can be; plus, she will have to campaign for only three months. How much scandal about Hillary can Republicans come up with, and would they run with it even if the could? Alternatively, Hillary benefits by having weak Democrat candidates remain in the race; no matter who the Democrats put up, he will lose to George W. Bush. Come 2008, Hillary will rally the Democrat faithful to her cause; after all, who is going to challenge her when she has the adoration of the faithful Democrat masses and has a mega-buck war chest?

I've spent more time that I thought I would. I've to get down to business.