The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
In fairness, it's not quite that bad!
I would prefer it to European politics anyway.
I've tended to the opinion that the Republican party is America's natural party of power and has to lose elections rather than Democrats winning them, and I'm not sure we haven't seen a bit of this again.
George H Bush lost his election based on two things as I recall. The first was his infamous "read my lips" promise that he then reneged on. And the second was largely down to Ross Perot who not only damaged the vote but quite cruelly turned the apparent advantage of Iraq right round on him, whilst Clinton just stood there and smiled. To no small extent, Nixon lost Ford the '76 election, and Hoover most definately lost '32 through economic mismanagement and an unshaking believe that the free market would work things out for him. It's probably a bit too easy to look at 1960 as the nearest parallel, but there seems to be a general consensus that Nixon's poor campaign and presentation cost him the election in the face of a bright new thing emerging, although the real cynic of course would argue that Kennedy didn't win!!!
I thought McCain fought a peculiar campaign and to no small extent contributed to his own demise. In fairness, any objective assessment would be remiss if it didn't mention the Dubya factor, and to some extent it should be credit to McCain that he polled in the mid to high 40's at a time when the incumbent President's approval ratings were in the low 20's.
His adoption of Palin was always a gamble. She was needed to help stitch up the whacky base of the Republican party which was slightly sceptical of McCain, but in truth I thought that was always something of a miscalculation given that their only plausible alternative would be to sit on their hands rather than vote Obama. There was a suggestion of course that women would vote for her in the absence of Hillary, but again this would be stupid bordering on the insulting. Geraldine Ferraro only reckons she contributed less than 1% to the female vote for Mondale for instance (although that would have been an unwinnable election). Palin was probably needed to inject a bit of wow into what was a lacklustre campaign, and it was predictable that she would achieve this initially (Ferraro did) before she started doing a passable impression of a dressed up barbie doll that had gone off message. In taking Palin (might have phrased that better), McCain effectively rolled the dice and perhaps there was a tacit acknowledgement that he needed to do something or face the inevitable. He did however go a long way towards forfeiting the 'experience card' that he was otherwise lining up on Obama, and with the Senator drafting in Biden it wasn't going to be quite so potent a weapon as had probably been anticipated. There is a theory of course that he wanted Liberman, and his presence at McCain's side became ever more marked as the campaign unfolded, especially as Palin started going off message and Tina Fey et al lampooned her to ridicule. The problem with Palin was largely McCains age and I can't believe there weren't a few nervous people doing the maths, and remembering that this is a women who believes in witchcraft.
The third killer blow was probably Lehman Brothers. McCain vacilated alarmingly, first of all suspending his campaign to try and orchestrate some choreographed dash back to Washington to sought out the mess that the Democrat controlled senate was never going to allow him to play. And then he compounded this by his 'will he, won't he' attempt to cancel the second debate. It was at this juncture that the polls diverted, and from a Republican perspective, never recovered. This was supposed to be the Iraq election, and Obama's voting record should have been under scrutiny, instead it turned round into the economy, and Obama just looked much more self-assured on this ground than his opponent
There were a series of allegations of infighting and suggestions that Palin had gone loco. Endorsements and compliments from senior Republicans followed, and to my mind at least, McCain was starting to show signs of detrioration. The maverick bite that had been associated with him previously, just wasn't there. He increasingly started to look like a tired old patriot playing the game, but resigned to his fate. For the most part he kept the campaign clean and didn't go after some of the baser options open to a desperate candidate. He even took to publicly lambasting some of his own supporters at rallies for derogatory comments aimed at his opponent. His party machinary was creaking and was gradually exposing him.
So what now for the Republicans?
Unlike most people who seem to be predicting a long walk in the wilderness and no small amount of soul searching, I'm not so sure. A similar thing was said in 1992 when the end of the cold war had denied the Republicans some of their traditional safe ground of commie bashing, and it was suggested that it would no longer be possible to win elections on cold war politics. It was said then that the party had to reinvent itself and to some extent its being said again. What it did of course was mangle organised religious endorsements into politics and propogated the biggest retard to inherit the Oval Office in my living memory (its just a shame that the penny only started to drop with Americans in about 2006). I think I'm right in saying McCain got 47% of the popular vote, even if he's only got 169 college votes at the time of writing. This is hardly a meltdown of Kim Campbell proportions (Canada 1990's if anyone's interested), and given the cards he was dealt, as well as the self-inflicted wounds, it should be a matter of tinkering and trying not to appease the cranky religious right to the extent that they can claim some middle ground back.
Most people seem to be expressing the opinion that Obama is in for a bumpy ride and I can't pretend otherwise. For a period of time he'll be able to point the finger towards Crawford and say "it's all his fault", but that wears thin, and patient is one thing Americans aren't. Curiously they also tend to make a big thing about the first 100 days, and I'm sure Obama would love to do something significant, its just that there aren't too many avenues open to him. Alarmingly I note that Russia has chosen to move nuclear missiles into the Baltic region today (sound familiar?). New President? inexperienced Senator being tested out? Lets just hope this is Putin playing string pulling games rather than a re-run of 1962.
There's always the potential spectre of a Bush googly to contend with too. His Dad of course left Bill Clinton a nice leaving present, he invaded Somalia in the last 2 weeks of his term. It's being reported that various right wing lobbyists are currently charging round filling Bush's head up with ideas, with an attack against Irans nuclear establishments being most widely touted. I'm not so concerned as I was on this one. To me Bush is looking increasingly like a broken man, and someone whose slowly coming to terms with the fact that his Presidency is going out with a whimper and that history isn't going to be kind to him. Having said that, there's enough loonies around him to encourgae him to try a spectacular I suppose, but to me he seems to have lost all appetite and authority
George H Bush lost his election based on two things as I recall. The first was his infamous "read my lips" promise that he then reneged on. And the second was largely down to Ross Perot who not only damaged the vote but quite cruelly turned the apparent advantage of Iraq right round on him, whilst Clinton just stood there and smiled. To no small extent, Nixon lost Ford the '76 election, and Hoover most definately lost '32 through economic mismanagement and an unshaking believe that the free market would work things out for him. It's probably a bit too easy to look at 1960 as the nearest parallel, but there seems to be a general consensus that Nixon's poor campaign and presentation cost him the election in the face of a bright new thing emerging, although the real cynic of course would argue that Kennedy didn't win!!!
I thought McCain fought a peculiar campaign and to no small extent contributed to his own demise. In fairness, any objective assessment would be remiss if it didn't mention the Dubya factor, and to some extent it should be credit to McCain that he polled in the mid to high 40's at a time when the incumbent President's approval ratings were in the low 20's.
His adoption of Palin was always a gamble. She was needed to help stitch up the whacky base of the Republican party which was slightly sceptical of McCain, but in truth I thought that was always something of a miscalculation given that their only plausible alternative would be to sit on their hands rather than vote Obama. There was a suggestion of course that women would vote for her in the absence of Hillary, but again this would be stupid bordering on the insulting. Geraldine Ferraro only reckons she contributed less than 1% to the female vote for Mondale for instance (although that would have been an unwinnable election). Palin was probably needed to inject a bit of wow into what was a lacklustre campaign, and it was predictable that she would achieve this initially (Ferraro did) before she started doing a passable impression of a dressed up barbie doll that had gone off message. In taking Palin (might have phrased that better), McCain effectively rolled the dice and perhaps there was a tacit acknowledgement that he needed to do something or face the inevitable. He did however go a long way towards forfeiting the 'experience card' that he was otherwise lining up on Obama, and with the Senator drafting in Biden it wasn't going to be quite so potent a weapon as had probably been anticipated. There is a theory of course that he wanted Liberman, and his presence at McCain's side became ever more marked as the campaign unfolded, especially as Palin started going off message and Tina Fey et al lampooned her to ridicule. The problem with Palin was largely McCains age and I can't believe there weren't a few nervous people doing the maths, and remembering that this is a women who believes in witchcraft.
The third killer blow was probably Lehman Brothers. McCain vacilated alarmingly, first of all suspending his campaign to try and orchestrate some choreographed dash back to Washington to sought out the mess that the Democrat controlled senate was never going to allow him to play. And then he compounded this by his 'will he, won't he' attempt to cancel the second debate. It was at this juncture that the polls diverted, and from a Republican perspective, never recovered. This was supposed to be the Iraq election, and Obama's voting record should have been under scrutiny, instead it turned round into the economy, and Obama just looked much more self-assured on this ground than his opponent
There were a series of allegations of infighting and suggestions that Palin had gone loco. Endorsements and compliments from senior Republicans followed, and to my mind at least, McCain was starting to show signs of detrioration. The maverick bite that had been associated with him previously, just wasn't there. He increasingly started to look like a tired old patriot playing the game, but resigned to his fate. For the most part he kept the campaign clean and didn't go after some of the baser options open to a desperate candidate. He even took to publicly lambasting some of his own supporters at rallies for derogatory comments aimed at his opponent. His party machinary was creaking and was gradually exposing him.
So what now for the Republicans?
Unlike most people who seem to be predicting a long walk in the wilderness and no small amount of soul searching, I'm not so sure. A similar thing was said in 1992 when the end of the cold war had denied the Republicans some of their traditional safe ground of commie bashing, and it was suggested that it would no longer be possible to win elections on cold war politics. It was said then that the party had to reinvent itself and to some extent its being said again. What it did of course was mangle organised religious endorsements into politics and propogated the biggest retard to inherit the Oval Office in my living memory (its just a shame that the penny only started to drop with Americans in about 2006). I think I'm right in saying McCain got 47% of the popular vote, even if he's only got 169 college votes at the time of writing. This is hardly a meltdown of Kim Campbell proportions (Canada 1990's if anyone's interested), and given the cards he was dealt, as well as the self-inflicted wounds, it should be a matter of tinkering and trying not to appease the cranky religious right to the extent that they can claim some middle ground back.
Most people seem to be expressing the opinion that Obama is in for a bumpy ride and I can't pretend otherwise. For a period of time he'll be able to point the finger towards Crawford and say "it's all his fault", but that wears thin, and patient is one thing Americans aren't. Curiously they also tend to make a big thing about the first 100 days, and I'm sure Obama would love to do something significant, its just that there aren't too many avenues open to him. Alarmingly I note that Russia has chosen to move nuclear missiles into the Baltic region today (sound familiar?). New President? inexperienced Senator being tested out? Lets just hope this is Putin playing string pulling games rather than a re-run of 1962.
There's always the potential spectre of a Bush googly to contend with too. His Dad of course left Bill Clinton a nice leaving present, he invaded Somalia in the last 2 weeks of his term. It's being reported that various right wing lobbyists are currently charging round filling Bush's head up with ideas, with an attack against Irans nuclear establishments being most widely touted. I'm not so concerned as I was on this one. To me Bush is looking increasingly like a broken man, and someone whose slowly coming to terms with the fact that his Presidency is going out with a whimper and that history isn't going to be kind to him. Having said that, there's enough loonies around him to encourgae him to try a spectacular I suppose, but to me he seems to have lost all appetite and authority
Last edited:
George H Bush - shot down as a navy pilot at Midway, and unfortunately rescued thus allowing him to pro-create George Walker Bush. I think he was the youngest navy pilot to serve in WW2 and received a DFC.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more decorated President than Eisenhower so he'll sweep the board for the 1950's. Nixon was a navy man (logistics and cargo ships) who never saw any combat action but was mysetriously awarded two battle stars. That would make Kennedy's command of a MTB the greater war record in 1960.
Couldn't tell you about Hubert Humphrey in '68 but I'd be surprised if he had seen action as I think he must have been too old, (might have served at Gettysburg though) but it's not as if Nixons had a particularly auspicious CV so it wouldn't take much to eclipse him. George McGovern was awarded a silver star and a DFC so he would have the superior record to Nixon (and lost in 72). Carter and Ford achieved the same rank as Leuitenant Commnders in the navy, but you'd probably say that Ford had the bettewr record by virtue of WW2, although Carter might have served in Korea? Reagan never served and just made propaganda films instead. Don't know what Mondales record was, but it must have involved service of some description. Bush senior I've dealt with, and although Dukakis served, Bush had the better service record. Clinton never served, and Bush jnr famously joined the air defence guard to ensure that Texas was safe from errant viet-cong MiGs, although he buggered off halfway through his tour to do some campaign work instead. Can't remember what Gore did but he would have been old enough to serve in Vietnam. I've got a feeling he ended up as a journalist out there doing some propaganda stuff? Not exactly frontline, but still better than Bush who was crop spraying instead
2008 - Lost (McCain)
2004 - Lost (Kerry)
2000 - Lost (Gore)
1996 - Lost (Dole)
1992 - Lost (Bush)
1988 - Won (Dukakis)
1984 - Lost? (Mondale - can't believe that he hadn't got a better record than Reagan)
1980 - Lost (Carter)
1976 - Lost (Ford - close call as I said)
1972 - Lost (McGovern)
1968 - don't know (Humphrey)
1964 - don't know (Goldwater/ Wallace/ Johnson)
1960 - Won (Nixon / Kennedy)
1956 - Won (Eisenhower etc)
1952 - won
Is my best offering? The trend appears to have a historical edge that peters out in the early 70's or late 60's
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more decorated President than Eisenhower so he'll sweep the board for the 1950's. Nixon was a navy man (logistics and cargo ships) who never saw any combat action but was mysetriously awarded two battle stars. That would make Kennedy's command of a MTB the greater war record in 1960.
Couldn't tell you about Hubert Humphrey in '68 but I'd be surprised if he had seen action as I think he must have been too old, (might have served at Gettysburg though) but it's not as if Nixons had a particularly auspicious CV so it wouldn't take much to eclipse him. George McGovern was awarded a silver star and a DFC so he would have the superior record to Nixon (and lost in 72). Carter and Ford achieved the same rank as Leuitenant Commnders in the navy, but you'd probably say that Ford had the bettewr record by virtue of WW2, although Carter might have served in Korea? Reagan never served and just made propaganda films instead. Don't know what Mondales record was, but it must have involved service of some description. Bush senior I've dealt with, and although Dukakis served, Bush had the better service record. Clinton never served, and Bush jnr famously joined the air defence guard to ensure that Texas was safe from errant viet-cong MiGs, although he buggered off halfway through his tour to do some campaign work instead. Can't remember what Gore did but he would have been old enough to serve in Vietnam. I've got a feeling he ended up as a journalist out there doing some propaganda stuff? Not exactly frontline, but still better than Bush who was crop spraying instead
2008 - Lost (McCain)
2004 - Lost (Kerry)
2000 - Lost (Gore)
1996 - Lost (Dole)
1992 - Lost (Bush)
1988 - Won (Dukakis)
1984 - Lost? (Mondale - can't believe that he hadn't got a better record than Reagan)
1980 - Lost (Carter)
1976 - Lost (Ford - close call as I said)
1972 - Lost (McGovern)
1968 - don't know (Humphrey)
1964 - don't know (Goldwater/ Wallace/ Johnson)
1960 - Won (Nixon / Kennedy)
1956 - Won (Eisenhower etc)
1952 - won
Is my best offering? The trend appears to have a historical edge that peters out in the early 70's or late 60's
Last edited:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I was ready to throw something at the car stereo this morning when the hideous northern bird they've employed out of nowhere to cover the breakfast show on Virgin was still announcing at 730am - "and now......news just in......the new president of the United States......................issssss..........................................................................................Barack.........................................................Obama!!!!
For starters she had to be repeatedly corrected [on air] that he has won the election, is president-elect, not president - and she's so damned annoying it's not true!! Who the hell is she and why is she so in-yer-face, loud mouthed, and intensely annoying?! Give me JK and Joel anyday, they're by far the best DJs the station employs.
Is there any chance that Obama could indeed try to "change" things? Obviously most will be cynical but I have an open mind with this guy. I think his approach will be very different to recent presidents simply from where he has come from.
Interesting take, but then you might also point out that they've only been in power for 56 of the last 143 years.
Dems .................Reps
Obama ...............Bush GW
Clinton ...............Bush GH
Carter ................Reagan
Johnson LB ..........Ford
Kennedy .............Nixon
Truman ...............Eisenhower
Roosevelt (F) .......Hoover
Wilson ................Coolidge
Cleveland ............Harding
Buchanan ............Taft
Pierce .................Roosevelt (T)
Polk ...................McKinlay
Jackson ..............Harrison
Van Buren ...........Arthur
.........................Garfield
..........................Hayes
..........................Grant
..........................Johnson A
..........................Lincoln
..........................Adams JQ
..........................Monroe
..........................Jefferson
..........................Madison
Last edited:
The Viet-cong
My best guess Garteh is that the war thing and its apparent decline as an influencer is more likely to be associated with the passage of time and the emergence of a new age cohort rather than anything specific to vietnam. Unless you fought in it, most Americans would have had little exposure to the war other than through newsreels. No bombs ever fell on the mainland, and apart from the sinking of shipping off the Virginia coast, they wouldn't necessarily have been as caught up in it as most combatant nations.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Nice try (to the post before the one above!), but the parties have changed a tad over the years! I mean, just look at the electoral map and ask yourself... who fought who in the Civil War??
Seriously though, it's clearly cyclical now. Only once since the 2-term limit came in after FDR has either party managed to keep the White House for more than two consecutive terms.
Seriously though, it's clearly cyclical now. Only once since the 2-term limit came in after FDR has either party managed to keep the White House for more than two consecutive terms.
If I were looking for a pattern I'd be inclined to tentatively suggest that there appears to be two based around the perceptions of voters priorities, (although its hardly conclusive).
When there's economic problems it seems that the electorate turn on the party most closely associated with business and Wall Street etc and vote Democrat. When there's a sense of national crisis/ security they tend to side with the Republicans.
Obama has clearly won an economic election with voters citing this as by far and away their biggest concern. Clinton (aided by Perot) was able to invoke economic failures and even betrayal on GH Bush's part to secure his first win, and in no small part his economic management guaranteed his second term. Gores failure I can't explain (but might suggest that he actually won) and so shouldn't necessarily be assessed as the loser anyway. Carter's victory would be a little bit more puzzling but I seem to think it was 1975 when oil prices quadrupled after the Yom Kipur war, so the conomy would have been struggling. In any event we had the Nixon effect in play and Gerry Ford was never going to be able to escape that. Roosevelts victory over Hoover was certainly achieved on grounds of the economy, although that Presidency ran into a war, which makes Trumans wins out of kilter with my theory. Woodrow Wilson also defies me, although Americas late entry into WW1 provides a bit of an explanation as he kind of inheritted a war rather than necessarily being elected because of one.
GW Bush won his second term on the back of terrorism and national security although Rove was particularly skillful at introducing something that the electorate cited as "values" into the equation which they ranked as their third biggest consideration. Reagan benefited from Carter's implosion but I would suggest it was the Iranian hostage thing that did for him more than the energy crisis and the economy. American prestige and global standing had been badly damaged between 1966 and 1979, and this played into Reagans hands. Eisenhower would have been re-elected based on Korea, and Nixon most definately benefited from Vietnam in much the same way as LBJ handling of the way meant he became unelectable because of it.
As I said it's not clear cut and there's a few anomolies in there, but broadly speaking you have a tentative pattern where by one side seemingly benefits in times of economic stress, and the other when there is a perceived sense of international crisis/ incident management. You could of course argue that 2008 embodied both, but with something like 80% of voters citing the economy as their number 1 concern, I don't think you could sustain the argument that national security was anything like the factor you felt it should have been
When there's economic problems it seems that the electorate turn on the party most closely associated with business and Wall Street etc and vote Democrat. When there's a sense of national crisis/ security they tend to side with the Republicans.
Obama has clearly won an economic election with voters citing this as by far and away their biggest concern. Clinton (aided by Perot) was able to invoke economic failures and even betrayal on GH Bush's part to secure his first win, and in no small part his economic management guaranteed his second term. Gores failure I can't explain (but might suggest that he actually won) and so shouldn't necessarily be assessed as the loser anyway. Carter's victory would be a little bit more puzzling but I seem to think it was 1975 when oil prices quadrupled after the Yom Kipur war, so the conomy would have been struggling. In any event we had the Nixon effect in play and Gerry Ford was never going to be able to escape that. Roosevelts victory over Hoover was certainly achieved on grounds of the economy, although that Presidency ran into a war, which makes Trumans wins out of kilter with my theory. Woodrow Wilson also defies me, although Americas late entry into WW1 provides a bit of an explanation as he kind of inheritted a war rather than necessarily being elected because of one.
GW Bush won his second term on the back of terrorism and national security although Rove was particularly skillful at introducing something that the electorate cited as "values" into the equation which they ranked as their third biggest consideration. Reagan benefited from Carter's implosion but I would suggest it was the Iranian hostage thing that did for him more than the energy crisis and the economy. American prestige and global standing had been badly damaged between 1966 and 1979, and this played into Reagans hands. Eisenhower would have been re-elected based on Korea, and Nixon most definately benefited from Vietnam in much the same way as LBJ handling of the way meant he became unelectable because of it.
As I said it's not clear cut and there's a few anomolies in there, but broadly speaking you have a tentative pattern where by one side seemingly benefits in times of economic stress, and the other when there is a perceived sense of international crisis/ incident management. You could of course argue that 2008 embodied both, but with something like 80% of voters citing the economy as their number 1 concern, I don't think you could sustain the argument that national security was anything like the factor you felt it should have been
For Heaven's sake Andrew she was just telling it like it is. There has always been that huge divide, in experience and especially in 'expectations' between black and white in America.
The Obama Presidential campaign has fianlly broken down those barriers to a very large extent, and emphasised that the problems of the poor are ones they have in common - whatever the colour of their skin; that is what Michelle Obama was saying.
In America these are in particular problems of health care, and to lesser extent of access to a good education. Colour has in the past been a prime indicator for poverty, more so in the US than over here. Can this President help change that? He believes he can. And so do a majority of the people of America.
Anyone who hasn't been profoundly moved by the events - and the speeches, on both sides - of the last 36 hours must be so cynical as to be partly dead - and dead in parts which matter.
Yes, let's enjoy the moment, and live in hope for a while: if Obama can govern with the passion and precision, and intelligence and heart, with which he speaks, he will be a great President. He has inspired the people of his country, and we must all hope he can deliver on the promise he has shown.
I was most moved by the barber shop owner who gave a thoughtful reaction, when interviewed about what he thought this election meant, saying that now there was a black man going to the White House, they would all have to raise their game, and not allow any negative collective impressions of their race or community to tarnish his ability to succeed. He felt this national act of daring would make *all* Americans, and especially black Americans, strive to be better people - how inspiring is that?
I'm old enough to remember the horrors of the US Civil Rights movement, and seeing it all unfold - sometimes nightly - on the news. It was hardly credible that a so-called civilised country could tolerate the treatment of blacks in its Southern states, and the vilence and hatred was palpable, even an ocean away. it mad eone despair of the human race.
It's scarcely believable that within little more than a generation, history has been made by this extraordinary man, carrying much of the country and almost all of tis youth on such a wave of optimism and idealism. To call it a 'circus' is to miss the point entirely.
The Obama Presidential campaign has fianlly broken down those barriers to a very large extent, and emphasised that the problems of the poor are ones they have in common - whatever the colour of their skin; that is what Michelle Obama was saying.
In America these are in particular problems of health care, and to lesser extent of access to a good education. Colour has in the past been a prime indicator for poverty, more so in the US than over here. Can this President help change that? He believes he can. And so do a majority of the people of America.
Anyone who hasn't been profoundly moved by the events - and the speeches, on both sides - of the last 36 hours must be so cynical as to be partly dead - and dead in parts which matter.
Yes, let's enjoy the moment, and live in hope for a while: if Obama can govern with the passion and precision, and intelligence and heart, with which he speaks, he will be a great President. He has inspired the people of his country, and we must all hope he can deliver on the promise he has shown.
I was most moved by the barber shop owner who gave a thoughtful reaction, when interviewed about what he thought this election meant, saying that now there was a black man going to the White House, they would all have to raise their game, and not allow any negative collective impressions of their race or community to tarnish his ability to succeed. He felt this national act of daring would make *all* Americans, and especially black Americans, strive to be better people - how inspiring is that?
I'm old enough to remember the horrors of the US Civil Rights movement, and seeing it all unfold - sometimes nightly - on the news. It was hardly credible that a so-called civilised country could tolerate the treatment of blacks in its Southern states, and the vilence and hatred was palpable, even an ocean away. it mad eone despair of the human race.
It's scarcely believable that within little more than a generation, history has been made by this extraordinary man, carrying much of the country and almost all of tis youth on such a wave of optimism and idealism. To call it a 'circus' is to miss the point entirely.
PS Interesting point about military experience being an asset until the early 60s. In the late 60s troopers were used to quell civil riots, esp anti-war demonstrations. And since then, most of the wars fought by America have been deeply unpopular with most of the people, which I think has probably been decisive in turning the mass of the electorate (esp the young) against those candidates with military experience.
I don't think that would have been the case with a Colin Powell candidacy however, for several reasons - one being his colour and another being his 2004 resignation ( for a reminder see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50926-2004Nov15.html )
Re matter of his and Condi Rice's serving their country at top level 'in spite of' their colour, and the fact they were appointed and not elected: were they not both appointed by Republican Presidents?
America has come a long way in a short time, truly.
I do agree that their elevation to high office has helped paved the way for Obama.
I also think the portrayal of the idealistic black President in the smash hit series "24" has subliminally helped to accustom Americans to the idea.
I don't think that would have been the case with a Colin Powell candidacy however, for several reasons - one being his colour and another being his 2004 resignation ( for a reminder see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50926-2004Nov15.html )
Re matter of his and Condi Rice's serving their country at top level 'in spite of' their colour, and the fact they were appointed and not elected: were they not both appointed by Republican Presidents?
America has come a long way in a short time, truly.
I do agree that their elevation to high office has helped paved the way for Obama.
I also think the portrayal of the idealistic black President in the smash hit series "24" has subliminally helped to accustom Americans to the idea.
That would be the same Colin Powell who was asked by General Abrams to investigate a GI's complaint about My Lai, and made no serious attempt to do so, concluding instead that the allegation was false except for a few "isolated instances" and that "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnanmese people are excellent". It was only about 18 motnhs later that the truth came out, and Powell's contribution to covering it up has been largely air brushed from the record.
I can accept that war is messy and few reputations survive untarnished in the heat and confusion of battle however, and I for one certainly don't know what pressure might or might not have ben applied to him, though it doesn't require too big a leap of faith to imagine that a brutal 3 hour killing spree of 500 civilians wasn't exactly something that the American brass wanted to put into the public domain.
As regards the effect of popular shows preconditioning the population for a black President, it was suggested that it had been a factor on BBC, who also invoked the scripting of a latino in the 'west wing'. I wouldn't like to say what effect this drip fed imagary has, but I could believe it has been a suruptitious piece of background music that plays out on the subliminal subconcious. The mind conditioning technique I believe is known as 'auto-suggestion' which is designed to make people more receptive to an idea or course of behaviour through the subtle use of imagary or related behavioural triggers without them necessarily realising that they're being prepared. I'm struggling to believe it could be a major factor though, but it won't have done any harm either. I heard another comment to the effect that qutie a few Democrats could have won 2008 by virtue of simply not being George Bush, and not being a Republican.
We'll start seeing him assemble his team in the next few days and I'd expect him to staff it with Clinton people whilst omitting Hillary herself. In any event, it's far from certain she'd want a place at the table, for if she still harbours ambitions to run again in 2012, it would require the Obama regime to have grown unpopular and she'd need distance between herself and the incumbent in order to present a viable and credible alternative. By becoming part of the administration, she couldn't do that. I'd expect Bill Clinton to receive a boost to his African work, and it's just about possible that Hillary might end up as something like the Ambassador to the UN thus allowing both of them to stay in New York. The job is poisionous though, and the UN is not held in a wide regard in America and wouldn't be a good launch pad to have another go from. In any event, she'd reckon her position as Senator carried a higher profile with less chance of becoming mired in banana skins.
I was mildly amused to hear Bush pledge his full co-operation in assisting Obama in the handover (what else could he do? pledge obstruction?). Alright you get some silliness as the Clinton staffers removed the letter W from all the White House keyboards apparently, but the more serious errors in briefing a changeover occurred between Sandy Berger and Condaleeza Rice. Clearly someone isn't telling the truth given the diametrically opposite accounts of what was briefed to her regarding Bin Laden. Berger swears that he tried to impress upon her the immediate and real threat posed by AQ and Bin Liner, and all she was interested in was 'star wars' and 'missile defence'. She's even alleged to have commented "that little man in Afghanistan? what can he do to us?".
It's a possible flaw in the system of course which the British don't suffer from given that the Civil Service is politically neutral (theoretically) and thus capable of switching service overnight to run with any new administrations agenda. An American administration is much more partisan, and I don't believe they have an equivilant of a privvy council either to appraise opposition leaders/ significants of contemporary developments.
I'll be mildly interested to see of Condi manages to secure herself the role as Commissioner for the NFL now
I can accept that war is messy and few reputations survive untarnished in the heat and confusion of battle however, and I for one certainly don't know what pressure might or might not have ben applied to him, though it doesn't require too big a leap of faith to imagine that a brutal 3 hour killing spree of 500 civilians wasn't exactly something that the American brass wanted to put into the public domain.
As regards the effect of popular shows preconditioning the population for a black President, it was suggested that it had been a factor on BBC, who also invoked the scripting of a latino in the 'west wing'. I wouldn't like to say what effect this drip fed imagary has, but I could believe it has been a suruptitious piece of background music that plays out on the subliminal subconcious. The mind conditioning technique I believe is known as 'auto-suggestion' which is designed to make people more receptive to an idea or course of behaviour through the subtle use of imagary or related behavioural triggers without them necessarily realising that they're being prepared. I'm struggling to believe it could be a major factor though, but it won't have done any harm either. I heard another comment to the effect that qutie a few Democrats could have won 2008 by virtue of simply not being George Bush, and not being a Republican.
We'll start seeing him assemble his team in the next few days and I'd expect him to staff it with Clinton people whilst omitting Hillary herself. In any event, it's far from certain she'd want a place at the table, for if she still harbours ambitions to run again in 2012, it would require the Obama regime to have grown unpopular and she'd need distance between herself and the incumbent in order to present a viable and credible alternative. By becoming part of the administration, she couldn't do that. I'd expect Bill Clinton to receive a boost to his African work, and it's just about possible that Hillary might end up as something like the Ambassador to the UN thus allowing both of them to stay in New York. The job is poisionous though, and the UN is not held in a wide regard in America and wouldn't be a good launch pad to have another go from. In any event, she'd reckon her position as Senator carried a higher profile with less chance of becoming mired in banana skins.
I was mildly amused to hear Bush pledge his full co-operation in assisting Obama in the handover (what else could he do? pledge obstruction?). Alright you get some silliness as the Clinton staffers removed the letter W from all the White House keyboards apparently, but the more serious errors in briefing a changeover occurred between Sandy Berger and Condaleeza Rice. Clearly someone isn't telling the truth given the diametrically opposite accounts of what was briefed to her regarding Bin Laden. Berger swears that he tried to impress upon her the immediate and real threat posed by AQ and Bin Liner, and all she was interested in was 'star wars' and 'missile defence'. She's even alleged to have commented "that little man in Afghanistan? what can he do to us?".
It's a possible flaw in the system of course which the British don't suffer from given that the Civil Service is politically neutral (theoretically) and thus capable of switching service overnight to run with any new administrations agenda. An American administration is much more partisan, and I don't believe they have an equivilant of a privvy council either to appraise opposition leaders/ significants of contemporary developments.
I'll be mildly interested to see of Condi manages to secure herself the role as Commissioner for the NFL now
Look out for a Newsweek article today from inside the McCain campaign. Apparently Ms Palin was unaware that Africa was an actual continent, not a country, and that the bit at the bottom, South Africa, was an independent state.
It is also speculated that she will resign as Gov, appoint her deputy to succeed her, who will constitutionally be in a position to appoint her to the US Senate as the Republican Senator for Alaska recently did a perp walk.
We came within a heartbeat.
It is also speculated that she will resign as Gov, appoint her deputy to succeed her, who will constitutionally be in a position to appoint her to the US Senate as the Republican Senator for Alaska recently did a perp walk.
We came within a heartbeat.
Not a chance. Not a hope in hell. That can only really come from that community's own efforts (they should look towards how asian and latino groupings are progressing)and even with two terms it is extremely unlikely that there will be any radical change
I also suspect that any hopes for special pleading will be quickly crushed
Either way these things takes time