Hard News: Some Politics
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Obama's crucial short coming is that of experience.
For US domestic politics I don't think this is true, he'd probably achieve as much as Clinton would. But I think that this is an issue when it comes to international politics, which is where most of the interest/concern is. And it wouldn't be so much of an issue if it wasn't who he was running against.
Clinton spent 8 years observing Bill and his dealings on the international stage. Trying to deal with Israel/Palestine, North Korea, Iran etc. She saw from the inside all the decision making that went on around these issues. I think that's a huge asset since the big issue will be the US relationship with the rest of the world once Bush goes. She is the best placed. I’m biased, being a bit of a fan of Bill but looking back I think many people would recognise now how good he was.
There is one other person who would compare - Al Gore.
It would be a mistake to believe that just not having Bush will magically solve the serious issues out there.
-
Riddley:
Jonkey? Have you been learning to spell from the mouth-breathers on the far-right who habitually call the Prime Minister 'Klark' and her party 'Liarbore'?
Hey, I'll take that as a gracious admission you can't actually rebut anything I've said, so it's time to get down to not very punny name-calling. Nice way to go into a weekend, I think.
-
Bush has a lot to hide. Firing a USA (Carol Lam, whom he appointed) while she's engaged in the prosecution of the biggest political corruption case for a generation- that's just hubris plus. This is the case, don't forget, that implicated the CIA's number 3 and forced Porter Goss' swift resignation. It's not over. Do you think Bush/Gonzales is going to appoint someone who'll keep pushing it- on past Lewis- just as hard as possible?
The MSM tend to give up on a story once there's a scalp. It's one of the things this White House counts on. Throw another (no)body (a Cunningham here, a Libby there) off the lifeboat. It keeps the sharks busy for weeks.
And James- with respect- you surely can't expect us to take Novak seriously on the Plame affair? Yep, he's surely an insider (tho' without, it would appear, the balls to be quite the same sort of insider as Miller...). But unbiased? Please. -
Obama does lack experience and he could implode under pressure or some as yet unheard scandal. But ain't he done well so far! Truely impressive, and actually (I'm not saying this is good!) might appeal more to the conservative Xtians than Guilianni (not only pro-abortion, but all those links to the mob?) Ideally Obama'd be in a better position after a stint as VP (one barracade at a time) but even if the wounds have healed, it seems unlikely either Edwards (who is stodgy to me) or Hillary (who I also don't get) would want someone so charismatic that close.
With regard to wounds healing- I think that's partly why the Dems have gone at it so early- to get the blood-letting of the primaries get well and truely out of the news cycle before the campaign in earnest. But it might just mean an extended season for blood-letting!
With regard to Hillary- she IS a hard candidate to sell. But don't underestimate the power of Bill campaigning for her. I s'pect he's the ace-up-the-sleeve they're counting on. He's still popular. They can have him campaigning on the same stage, or split up and keep Hillary in Ca and NY and send Bill through the south. What other candidate has an advisor with that sort of experience they can kiss goodnight? -
Jonkey? Have you been learning to spell from the mouth-breathers on the far-right who habitually call the Prime Minister 'Klark' and her party 'Liarbore'?
yes fair call Craig, that was childish and unnecessary of me.
I genuinely apologise for that. -
Neil,
You wrote, "It would be a mistake to believe that just not having Bush will magically solve the serious issues out there."
Nice to see some recognition of this. It doesn't matter who would have been in the White House these last six years, we would have had some very difficult times regardless.
Rob,
I don’t get this blowing off Novak stuff. He is the guy who Richard Armitage at State (non White House, non Bush insider) told about Plame. Novak is the guy to whom the CIA confirmed that Plame was an employee of the CIA. He is no Bush lackey, he was against the Iraq invasion from the very beginning, and hasn't been shy about it since. His article started the whole Plame thing from the beginning, how can you say that he and his information and views are of no value? Novak is not discredited; he did not come out of the whole sorry saga looking bad (unlike Armitage and Powell)As for Duke Cunningham, the White House had nothing to do with his case either way. He was a crook and he deserves to be in jail, and there are more in the Congress, from both sides, who deserve and need to be in jail as well.
Don't over estimate Bill's help to Hillary. He will be invaluable as a campaign strategist, and yes he is still popular, but nobody will be able to help thinking that do we really want a First Husband who will be groping waitresses at State functions, and heaven only knows what else, for 4 or 8 years. Unfortunately, Bill can fit in a lot of groping in 8 years, and this is not a thought that most Americans find very pleasant.
Obama could well appeal to white Christians, as long as he stays away from the race hustlers and shake down artists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, he will have no problem getting a lot of white voters, which is great. That a female and a black are top contenders in a Presidential race is great news indeed.
Simon,
Lots of journalists recent past includes the word "swift boating". Any journalist who had a job and a pulse in 2004 would have written about the swift boat issue. Kerry made his very short military service the center piece of his campaign ("John Kerry, reporting for duty!!") and so it was more than fair game for anyone to examine it. And when a sailor is running President and a good number of other sailors in his area have questions that sailor's suitability to be Commander in Chief, that is news that needs to be reported.If Hayden is correct in describing Plame as covert, then her beef should be with the CIA, who confirmed her identify to a journalist. If she really was covert, the CIA blew the cover of one of their own agents.
If Plame was covert, Fitzgerald should have prosecuted Armitage. He didn't.
Who to believe? Maybe someone who helped draft the applicable legislation?
"Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years."
-
James,
There was more to Novak and swiftboating than you imply. From Wikipedia:
his son, Alex Novak, is the Director of Marketing for the Swift Boat Veterans' publisher, Regnery Publishing. At the time he said that he didn't "think it relevant." Two months later Salon.com reported that Regnery's owner is also the publisher of Novak's own US$297 (annual rate) newsletter and that Novak is on the board of a foundation whose chief holdings are the stock of Regnery's parent company
Your defense of the man is noted, but I'm sorry he has little credibility.
Who to believe? Perhaps the judge who determined the case.
Victoria Toensing' is a tad partisan. Read her various op/eds over the years. Toensing's opinion here is of little value when she had no involvement in or knowledge of Plame's day to day activities. Hayden and Waxman do, and therefore their judgment must stand.
Your comment "First Husband who will be groping waitresses at State functions, and heaven only knows what else, for 4 or 8 years. Unfortunately, Bill can fit in a lot of groping in 8 years, and this is not a thought that most Americans find very pleasant." does you no credit though. In fact Gallup polling in Feb indicated that 78% of Americans felt he would be an asset as a best man.
-
Incidentally the most recent polling this week at Polling Report puts Obama level pegging with Rudy....a jump of some 5 points in a week. Early days, but, as I said earlier, he has the momentum right now
-
3410,
James,
Richard Armitage a "non Bush insider"? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
-
-
speaking of dodgey neo-con smear campaigns against Gore, try this - it's quite amusing
-
Richard Armitage a "non Bush insider"? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Yep, Armitage was State Dept - part of the Powel camp, he wasn't
part of the Bush/Cheney faction. He just blabbed to the media about Plame probably to sound important, it wasn't anything orchestrated by Bush/Cheney. -
But don't underestimate the power of Bill campaigning for her.
They've been working on this for a long time, he's been based in Harlem for obvious reasons and she's been doing things like wooing southern white women. I think the choice of VP will be entirely pragmatic - if Obama can bring in votes they need then he's got a chance. If not then he wont.
-
Incidentally the most recent polling this week at Polling Report puts Obama level pegging with Rudy....a jump of some 5 points in a week. Early days, but, as I said earlier, he has the momentum right now
Yeah. It's no big deal that Obama polls lower than people like Clinton and Rudy during the early days of the campaign, since hardly anyone in the US outside the political classes knows who Obama is while everyone knows who Hilary and Rudy are.
I don't think people's opinions about most of the other candidates - Hilary in particular - are likely to shift significantly but I think the more people see of Obama the more they'll be impressed.
-
Don't over estimate Bill's help to Hillary. He will be invaluable as a campaign strategist, and yes he is still popular, but nobody will be able to help thinking that do we really want a First Husband who will be groping waitresses at State functions, and heaven only knows what else, for 4 or 8 years.
I would have thought a bigger problem would be having a husband who is more popular and has a bigger profile than you.
People will be thinking "yeah, I'd vote for Bill, dunno about that Hillary though". It's a large shadow to walk behind, and she's spent a few decades pushing him to the front, I'm not sure it'll play out so well the other way around.
-
The line that Giuliani is too liberal for the Reps doesn't appear to stand up according to a recent Gallup poll - Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate, Conservative Republicans
Hillary's polling is interesting. She's ahead in every age and gender group and has a considerable lead (22% over Obama) amongst women aged 18-49. If her slightly more hawkish views were going to be a deciding factor it would be with this group but it doesn't look like it. Also, it doesn't look like she has a problem with them over Bill. And for both men and women over 50, where doubts about her being independent enough would be most prominent, she's still way ahead.
Strangely it’s only with men 18-49 where Obama is anywhere close.
-
One more thing about Clinton that leaves a bad taste in my mouth - let's say she's elected President and serves two terms. The US will have then been lead by people from either the Bush or Clinton family for 28 consecutive years. There's something basically wrong there . . .
-
merc,
Dynastic rule lives on.
-
I actually think the Labtest fiasco is something for which the authorities directly involved should take the rap. The alternative is a return to central control of the the whole system, which I suspect Tony Ryall doesn't really want ...
To which I'll add, it's an Auckland problem. Obviously the rest of us don't care, we just get it thrown at us on the news :)
-
One more thing about Clinton that leaves a bad taste in my mouth - let's say she's elected President and serves two terms. The US will have then been lead by people from either the Bush or Clinton family for 28 consecutive years. There's something basically wrong there . . .
Kevin Phillips' (a former Reagan / Nixon staffer and Republican strategist) American Dynasty is worth reading on this, essentially arguing that the corruption and cronyism of the Bush White House is the outcome of pre-determined Dynasism, the inevitable result of a power structure that slowly manifested itself and gained momentum over the past century.
The chapter relating to Bush Senior's role in keeping the US hostages in Iran until after Nov 1979, in order to facilitate Reagan's election is fascinating. How things come back to bite....
-
James- with regard to Novak- perhaps I'm overly influenced by jon Stwewart's "douchebag of liberty" crack. I don't mean to insinuate he's an insider in terms of some conspiracy. I've really only seen him via clips on youtube, but he's oozed an air of bad faith. Didn't know about his son, but it's not surprising. But ok- he's unbiased on Plame, and simply an opinionated, self-serving right-wing loudmouth, on good enough terms (at least before Plame broke) with Rove to have had many friendly chats.
Re Hillary/Obama- they'd make a good ticket, but I can't see it happening. Hillary has a lot of strengths, but for me- so far- she's just not good enough on TV. It may be shallow, but Al Gore is the last candidate who wasn't any good on tv to win- no wait! (actually he's done a LOT of work on being telegenic- there IS a good chance he's a "lurker" candidate.) But it's easy to see that TV loves Obama.Maybe that's why Fox are gunning for him so hard- that and no doubt 'cause it wouldn't be smart to go for Rupert's new pal Hillary? -
We all have to remember that its still early 2007, and a lot can change before primaries start, let alone the real competion.
I can't remember things being so highly excited this time last cycle, or is my memory just really bad?
-
Having had a Bush or Clinton on every presidential ballot since 1980 (as prez or VP) is definitely a issue against Hillary. And the comparison against Bill is one Hillary will lose every time, being a phony bitch compared with Bill's ability to connect with any audience or group anywhere anytime is just a comparison terrible for Hillary.
But Bill's past, Monica and all the rest of them, will be part and parcel of Hillary's campaign, whether she or anyone else likes it or not, both from a serious perspective, like the very credible allegation by Juanita Brodderick of rape against Bubba, and from the Leno, Letterman et al aspect of humour which is just going to happen. There is so much material, how can anyone expect them to leave it alone?
I saw a clip of Dennis Miller the other night, it was so funny. He played a clip of Hillary reading her book, Living History (which should be called Re-writing History). She was talking about "how mad she was when she found about Monica, I was just so mad, I was shocked, I had no idea” Miller cuts in with "sorry honey, if you had no idea that Bill was playing around on you, after having being slept around on so many times already, you are just not smart enough to be my President!!" It is only so funny because it is so true. She is either lying in her book and some kind of strange woman for putting up with Bill repeated affairs, or she is an idiot.
BTW, when you are talking about the Clintons, I wouldn't recommend using the phrase " ..leaves a bad taste in my mouth.." Most people state side will either think you are making a joke, or cringe at the thought.
The other Clinton aspect that will surface at some stage is their library. To date no list of donors or expenditure has been disclosed. Bearing in mind plenty of foreign countries and nationals, many from the Middle East have made "donations", (is it a donation, or a fee for services rendered, or services to be rendered?) Americans have every right to know who Bill and Hill owe IOUs to, and what this money has been spent on. A cynic would say that the library is a clever exercise in money laundering.
And no, Armitage is not a Bush insider. In fact when Armitage read a Novak article that described his source on who recommended Walter Mitty (Joe Wilson) for the trip to Niger, as a "not exactly a partisan gun slinger" Armitage thought "shit, Novack is talking about me!!" and went to Powell to say he thought he was Novack's source on Plame. That Powell and Armitage didn't go public and put an early end to the whole silly story right at the beginning, is something that really shreds their integrity and judgment, and highlights the fact that they were no loyal allies of Bush.
Neil, good article on Giuliani. It is exactly what I am reading and hearing over here. I know quite a few people who are quite conservative and they like Rudy because they think he is tough. All Rudy has to say is “I may have some liberal views on some social issues, but I wont use the White House to advance those views, I will appoint staunch judges like Roberts and Alito, I will finish the job in Iraq, fight the war on terror and approach the Iranian issue etc. very aggressively, and I will extend the Bush tax cuts and cut taxes more” and he will get most conservatives voters. Rudy also goes on the record saying that Roe v Wade should be overturned because it was a terrible decision from a legal standpoint, and the issue of abortion belongs at the state level. Add to the mix that there is no rationale for 2 moderate liberal Repubs in the primary race, and that McCain’s campaign is not looking good, and Rudy looks even stronger.
-
The other Clinton aspect that will surface at some stage is their library. To date no list of donors or expenditure has been disclosed. Bearing in mind plenty of foreign countries and nationals, many from the Middle East have made "donations", (is it a donation, or a fee for services rendered, or services to be rendered?) Americans have every right to know who Bill and Hill owe IOUs to, and what this money has been spent on. A cynic would say that the library is a clever exercise in money laundering.
Maybe Ayam al-Zawahiri paid for the tin-foil lined roof?
I can't remember things being so highly excited this time last cycle, or is my memory just really bad?
I was pretty excited during the primaries - Bush had been such a disaster the Democrats were BOUND to get it! Then they nominated Kerry and Edwards.
-
Ben, things are different this time due to the cable tv and the internet, blogs you tube etc, it is like we are having a cable tv primary in 2007, the 2008 election is on all the time, it never stops. Also the primary schedule is being highly compressed. Many states are moving their primary to Feb 5, which is the date that will decide the winners. In order to be competitive in so many states in Jan Feb, you will need at least $100m in the bank on Jan 1. To get $100m in the bank on Jan 1 you need to be the top dog in Sept Oct. to be the top dog then; you’d better be up there in the polls and getting out and about right now.
2008 will be the first $1 billion election. But don't worry, if that sounds like a lot of money, Americans spend $1billion on chocolate every 6 weeks (and it shows!!)
Rob, take Jon Stewart & Bill Maher etc with a bag of salt. It is a fact that they are both very funny, but the both lean well left too. Watch them for a laugh, but whatever you do, don't develop your understanding about what is going on over here from those guys; you are screwing yourself royally if you do.
Also, the last un-telegenic presidential candidate apart from Bush and Gore, was ... Kerry. He was dreadful, came across as a pompous ass, " I voted for it before I voted against it!!" Please. Rove must have been falling off his chair laughing so hard and thinking to himself, "Kerry, are you doing my job for me or what?!!"
As for Fox gunning for Obama, I haven't seen much if any negative press from anyone on Obama yet. There is a lot of "who is this guy?", "here is more of his background" type stuff. He is a very new and a blank slate politically so that is fair enough. But you know that Hillary's dumpster divers are working overtime. That is happening for sure. No one will out mud wrestle a Clinton.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.