The presidential election 2008

[John Simkin]

I suspect the corruption in the Bush administration will have a similar impact that it had during the Nixon administration. As long as they don't make a mistake in selecting the candidate, the Democrats will win in 2008.

[Tim Gratz]

But they will, John.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

Andrew Sullivan from British The Sunday Times delivered a week ago in his article She's trying too hard to be a contender an interesting analyze of Hilary Clintons steps towards her nomination for presidential race 2008.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E7583,00.html

IF there's a certain schizophrenia in the rhetoric of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton these days, it's intentional. There she was last week, at a predominantly black congregation, lambasting Republicans. She lamented that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been "run like a plantation ... And you know what I am talking about". Republicans as slave holders? Now that's inflammatory.

Then only days later we saw the other side of Clinton's split political personality, a neo-conservative one: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it and standing on the sidelines.

"Let's be clear about the threat we face. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbours and beyond. We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Running to the Left of President George W. Bush and to the Right of him as well is not a feat most politicians are able to pull off. But Clinton has no alternative. And in that lies her dilemma. She has too liberal a past (and reputation) to be the Democratic Right's favoured candidate; and she's become far too conservative in the Senate to win over the Democratic Left.

Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.

But Andrew Sullivan sees many weaknesses in Hilary Clinton’s personality and political views to be impressed by her. He ends his article with following unusual suggestion:

My own hope is that she doesn't run. She doesn't have the instinctive connection with people to be an effective national politician: she's too cold, too calculating, too distant.

Her speeches have been getting better but still make Gore seem like a good performer. And a repeat of the acrimonious culture wars of the '90s is about the last thing the US needs.

Besides, there is a perfect position for her in American public life, and it's not in the Senate, despite her eminently respectable record there. She belongs on the Supreme Court. She's a lawyer who wants to change the world. That's almost a job description for a liberal justice. But she'll need a Democratic president to put her there. Maybe some of the cash she has been raising will help bring that about.

It could fund far worse causes: Hillary's own presidential ambition, for one.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

Depending on whom you talk to in Hollywood these days, Hillary Clinton is either too conservative, too polarizing, too famous, too stiff or — keep this to yourself! — too sexy.

And Hollywood we all should listen to, isn’t it so? At least in Sweden, newspapers like to quote what super stars of the white screen have to say about politics ….. Sean Penn I believe is most quoted actor here !!!!!

Whole article printed by Los Angeles Times could be read at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/...adlines-entnews

[Ed Waller]

Will voters get two distinctive choices 2008 concerning foreign policy?

Not as straightforwardly a black and white choice, as outsiders may have thought then?

Certainly Clinton is going to try to be seen to be both left and right of Rice and vice versa. Then they'll try to be more of everything than the other (Jewish, Irish, Catholic, Protestant, even Black). It doesn't matter what you say to get power, so long as you do, it seems.

This is why (republican??) newspapers can see Clinton as 'too much'.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

Not as straightforwardly a black and white choice, as outsiders may have thought then?

Certainly Clinton is going to try to be seen to be both left and right of Rice and vice versa. Then they'll try to be more of everything than the other (Jewish, Irish, Catholic, Protestant, even Black). It doesn't matter what you say to get power, so long as you do, it seems.

This is why (republican??) newspapers can see Clinton as 'too much'.

The Guardian of yesterday printed an interesting article ... well a future scenario written by Timothy Garton Ash under the headline

“The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009”

This article not only assumed that Hillary Clinton will be elected to the highest office after a tough campaign against (not Condoleezza Rice!!) but against republican John McCain .. but it assume also that the path chosen by today’s president will probably be followed by numerous future presidents mainly because the alternatives are not to be found anywhere around.

The article can be found at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1757027,00.html

Edited April 21, 2006 by Dalibor Svoboda

[John Simkin]

I suspect the corruption in the Bush administration will have a similar impact that it had during the Nixon administration. As long as they don't make a mistake in selecting the candidate, the Democrats will win in 2008.

Yes, but nominating Hillary would be that mistake---which is why that may be what will happen. Who knows, the way things are headed right now we'll be able to have another presidential impeachment about this time next year---and on far more significant issues than Oval Office philandering with phat girls.

Do you think Bush will really be impeached? I do suspect that the CIA is currently trying to remove Bush from office. See the following thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6648

[John Simkin]

I see you still have a lot of nutters in the US who think that Hillary Clinton is a communist.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

I see you still have a lot of nutters in the US who think that Hillary Clinton is a communist.

As the likelihood of a Clinton campaign becomes a reality, more reasons turn up that suggest why she could lose the nomination.

Interesting analyse about Hillary Clinton ambitions and chances written by National Journal at

http://nationaljournal.com/todd.htm

People who two years in advance (and after recent middle term elections) are interested of the approaching primaries the article “Hillary's Primary Problem” could add new knowledge and perspectives.

Too many of us have awarded Clinton the '08 nod too soon and too easily. The conventional-wisdom crowd is easily impressed by two things about her candidacy: money and her last name. There's also a dirty little secret that those of us in the media are leery to admit: She's good for business (particularly expense reports).

The article presents six reasons why the task of winning nomination could be insurmountable:

passion, Iowa, Iraq, gender, Bill Clinton, president Bush.

Read it!