I can’t believe how blind everyone is. There’s been a lot of comment about how the Clintons have failed to act against the possibility of former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Brush Dean III becoming the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dick Morris called the words “Chairman Howard Dean” the, “shortest suicide note in history.” What everyone’s missed is this: that’s exactly what Hillary and Bill both want.

Let’s face facts: the far-left wing of the Democratic Party is presently ascendant. If a relatively moderate Democrat like Tim Rohmer tried to take charge of the Democratic National Committee today, they’d be eaten alive by the collection of special interests who virtually own the Democratic Party.

The far left of the Democrat Party is convinced that the road to victory lies in strident ultra-liberalism. They believe that the reason they lost in 2004 was that the leaders of the party failed in making their opposition to Bush loud enough. They’ve been overtaken with a kind of psychosis, the kind of periodic madness which often results from the hard defeats. In their delusional state, they believe that they lost in spite of Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and the rest, not (at least in part) because of them. They think that traditional Democrats like Joe Lieberman are the problem.

Thus, having achieved virtual control of the party hierarchy, the far-left is engaged in a process of attempting to attain revolutionary purity. They’re so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they cannot be unconvinced, only driven from power. Jacobins are unappeasable.

Hillary and Bill know all of this. They also know that, for Hillary to be able to win in 2008, she needs several things. She needs an unopposed (or nearly unopposed) path to the nomination. She also needs to be able to move to the center and even the right in some cases. So long as the far-left is in control of the party, she will be able to do neither.

So: why are the Clintons standing aside for Howard Dean? Easy: they know that he’s likely to fail, probably spectacularly, and that he’s likely to discredit most of the radical left and leave the party base so eager for victory that they’d be willing to overlook any hearsay on the issues.

The Clintons (but especially Bill) are politically savvy people. They’ve got a finger on the political heartbeat of the nation. The key for Hillary to win the Presidency is for her to position herself in the most popular ground on a number of key issues.

In particular, look for her to revive Bill’s old “safe, legal, and rare” mantra on the issue of abortion, with an emphasis on the latter. I would not be at all shocked to see her embrace every possible legal restriction on abortion, short of an actual ban. This position would put her solidly in the center of American political opinion which, upon the whole, does not wish to see a return to the “back-alley” abortions of the past, but which is not, in any sense, “pro-abortion.”

Also look for her to move to the right on immigration. She’s already begun this process, talking about her opposition to illegal immigration. Look for her to go further, explaining that she supports illegal immigration but demanding stronger enforcement against illegals.

Finally, look for her to embrace the most popular ground on the issue of gay marriage. She’ll be opposed to gay marriage, but for civil unions. If it becomes necessary, she’ll probably even support a version of the Federal Marriage Amendment which embraces this position.

Of course, doing this and sailing to the nomination will be exceedingly difficult if the ultra-left wing of the party: Michael Moore, Democrat Underground, Daily Kos, etc, are not someone undermined and defeated. Thus, she can let them win now and lose now.

Anyone with any knowledge of Howard Dean must be well aware that he’d be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party. He’s basically the average former Governor of a small and liberal state who managed to stumble into a near-successful bid for the Democratic Nomination through a combination of strange occurrences. Once placed under the microscope, his campaign imploded as quickly and as spectacularly as any in living memory.

He’s remembered now for the “Dean Scream”, but focusing on that ignores what really killed him: his repeated gaffes and the horrible mismanagement of his campaign. We forget now, but his campaign managed to blow through over $50 Million while sinking without a trace. It takes a special kind of incompetence to blow that much money on a Presidential campaign while winning only a single primary.

Thus, come 2006, Dean is likely to lead the Democratic Party to their third disaster in three major election cycles. With Howard Dean in charge of the Democratic National Committee (and, given his personality, probably very publicly in charge), I think that the chances of sixty Republican seats in the Senate is rather high.

It’s really very simple: Hillary moves gradually rightwards on a number of issues and keeps her head down while running for re-election. In November of 2006, the Democratic Party as a whole flies off a cliff while Hillary coasts to re-election in New York.

In the months after the election, the radical left is ousted from control. Democratic desperation to win reaches a fever pitch. Hillary then declares in early 2007 and starts raising a truly massive amount of money, perhaps even money that was held back from the party in 2006 by key donors. With any luck, the remaining candidates are either going to be badly positioned to run or they’re not going to have a chance.

After all: who are the most formidable potential challengers to Hillary for the nomination in 2008? Kerry might run, but he’s done for. No one will remember who John Edwards even is by 2006. Three of the best plausible alternatives to Hillary are New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. It’s probably worth noting that both Richardson and Bredesen are going to be up for re-election in 2006 in states which are hardly traditional Democratic strongholds. A lot of people believe that Warner might run for the Senate in 2006 as a prelude to a Presidential campaign. All of their chances would be stopped cold by a 2006 defeat.

The sort of disaster which Howard Dean might lead the party into probably cannot be understated. The man is a perfect example of how dangerous the utterly incompetent are when convinced of their own virtues. A hard-left campaign in 2006, led by Dean, Michael Moore, and the rest of their ilk would result in a total meltdown for the party.

Of course, winning the nomination doesn’t guarantee Hillary the Presidency. Her strategy also carries with it a number of risks. Most notably, the risk that the Republican storm of 2006 will turn into the Republican tsunami of 2008, with the GOP picking up momentum as time goes on. It’s also possible that the irreconcilable elements of the hard left are so deeply embedded in the Democratic Party that purging them will prove impossible.

Naturally, I’ll be keeping an eye on all of this.