In talking about the post-defeat prospects for the Democratic Party one name has been all-but-ignored which should not be: that of Dr. Howard Brush Dean III. We’ve heard a lot about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, but almost nothing about Dr. Dean. I’m not really sure why: from my point of view, after a Kerry defeat, Howard Dean becomes the instant front-runner for the Democratic nomination in four years.

It’s foolish to think that the Democrats would respond to a defeat this year by universally concluding that they need to move to the ever-elusive “center”. The likelihood that this Democratic Party would do that after the campaign we’ve just been through is essentially nil. The most likely conclusion that average Democrat activists would take from a Kerry defeat, especially one without the massive increase in voter turn-out that they’re expecting is that Kerry, because of his evasiveness on the Iraq issue, failed to excite the “base” of the party.

I’ve almost zero doubt in my mind that Howard Dean is planning to run for President in 2008 and that he will start with a very strong base of support. Not only will he retain his activist followers, whose hearts have been with him all along, but he’ll also have the support of other assorted liberal Democrats who never committed to Dean but joined up with Kerry during the whole “electability” craze. I’ve very little doubt that, literally within days of the election, the whole Democratic spin machine will begin to push the message that he Democrats lost because they failed to stay true to liberalism.

The question then becomes: is this a potentially winning message? I don’t think so. I doubt if a revived Howard Dean would have any better chance of winning the General Election in 2008 than he would have had in 2004. So: will the Democrats of 2008 vote with their hearts or with their heads?

It is, of course, pretty much accepted as a fact that Hillary Clinton will run in 2008. It’s generally been assumed that she’d run as a candidate to the left of her husband, largely with the support of activist Democrats. These are the same Democrats, of course, that Governor Dean would depend upon to win his race and, I think, they’d be more likely to go for Dean than Clinton.

So, if Hillary runs for President, she’ll have to look elsewhere for much of her support. In my mind this raises the possibility of a “Nixon in China” scenario for Hillary, a scenario of which we’ve seen a few signs. Senator Clinton, of course, went right after a seat on the Armed Services Committee. And she’s actually been relatively muted in her attacks on the Iraq War. It doesn’t strike me as impossible that Hillary might run on a defense platform not only to the right of Dean (or whoever the liberal standard bearer will be), but to the right of the Republican candidate as well.

Think about it from a strategic perspective for a moment: Hillary, if she won the nomination, could, by her name and history alone, expect to receive pretty much lock-step support from most Democrats.

The name I’ve left out of this is that of John Edwards. There’s a simple reason for this: unless Kerry wins this election, I think that he’s done for. He hasn’t been at all impressive on the campaign trail and he’s no real prospect of holding any office over the next four years if he isn’t Vice President. He can’t even run for a Senate seat or for Governor of North Carolina because there won’t be an election for either of those offices until 2008. A losing campaign combined with years out of the public eye will finish John Edwards politically.

What we must ask next is who has the advantage in a Dean-Clinton contest. A lot, I think, depends on the maneuvering in the year ahead. I fully expect to see the first signs of a Dean campaign as early as November 3rd. Moreover, unlike this year, his campaign will be run by actual professionals, not enthusiastic amateurs.

The first task of a Dean campaign will be to spin away the negative memories of the final days of his campaign, most notably the infamous “Dean Scream.” Frankly, I don’t think this is as hard as it sounds, at least among Democrats. In fact, it could be turned into a plus. With careful work from surrogates, months after the election can be spent building a myth of Dean’s martyrdom. The first steps in this process, I think, are already underway.

Already more than a few people have suggested that he was the victim of an assault by the “corporate media.” From Dean’s perspective, this is good politics. Dean isn’t someone who was blown up by the media and was crushed when forced to face actual voters, but the wounded Messiah, assailed and brought low by unbelievers. The media, this myth would hold, pushed down a crown of negativity and crucified Dean upon the cross of electability.

In truth, I believe that Hillary Clinton is the national Democrat with the best chance of beating Dean and potentially winning the election in 2008. Especially if she runs to the right on national security: a move which would make her truly “electable” in a way that John Kerry never was.

The combination of anti-Republicanism and the Clinton name will be more than enough for Hillary to hold the Democratic base. Now, if she moves rightwards on national security, she might cause a few Democrats to bolt, but she’ll more than make up for that by grabbing independent and Republican votes.

If the Republicans nominate a conservative, she’ll manage to grab moderate Republicans. If they nominate a moderate, she’ll be able to protect Democratic moderates and, perhaps, even get to the right of the Republican, thus pulling disgruntled Republicans willing to vote on national security.

Hillary has another, hidden, advantage: a lot of Republicans really, really, really hate her. Now, isn’t always a bad thing in politics. The level of hatred directed towards President Bush has, if anything, strengthened him by drowning out more serious criticisms, discrediting all attackers, and alienating moderates. If Hillary were to be the Democratic nominee, she’ll have all sorts of foul (though at least partially true) abuse hurled at her by Republicans. That will work to drive moderates in her direction.

Would Hillary win? I don’t know, but I can tell you this: we’d be foolish to underestimate her.