The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Will be interesting to see who will get the first state visit...theres always a lot of jostling for position
Cant imagine it will be the cheeseeatingsurrendermonkey. The public wont be pleased with that
Brother Bob Mugabe? Economic advice?
Bin laden ? Would be a bit of a turn up...
Thr russians have no chance.
Favourite would be GB of course. If Obama could stand having him picking his nose for a couple of days
Cant imagine it will be the cheeseeatingsurrendermonkey. The public wont be pleased with that
Brother Bob Mugabe? Economic advice?
Bin laden ? Would be a bit of a turn up...
Thr russians have no chance.
Favourite would be GB of course. If Obama could stand having him picking his nose for a couple of days
Watch and weep
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
I don't normally put too much creedance in Fox News and I'm sure Clive will be choking at the prospect at how much better qualified he said Palin was than Obama. And just to give Grasshopper something to meuse on, the Times are reporting that Palin recieved briefing from the campaign team wearing nothing more than a towel!!! Can't see that this is particular felony myself, but it makes for titilating copy.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
I don't normally put too much creedance in Fox News and I'm sure Clive will be choking at the prospect at how much better qualified he said Palin was than Obama. And just to give Grasshopper something to meuse on, the Times are reporting that Palin recieved briefing from the campaign team wearing nothing more than a towel!!! Can't see that this is particular felony myself, but it makes for titilating copy.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
The first three parts of the Newsweek story are on their website, up to the end of the primaries:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
The Clinton campaign sounded like a right shambles.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
The Clinton campaign sounded like a right shambles.
Sheikh
At the Start
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eKZryEAzUg
Great Great Great Grandfather was from Moneygall Co. Offaly the same constituency as the current Taoiseach, watch them milk this one.
Great Great Great Grandfather was from Moneygall Co. Offaly the same constituency as the current Taoiseach, watch them milk this one.
No of course I'm not joking: the nomination was Powell's for the asking a few years back and he turned it down to please his wife who (probably correctly) thought he would be an even greater target for assassination than most Presidents (or candidates). Powell is an American who appeals across the entire political spectrum and would very probably have won, had he stood
I pray Obama stays safe. There will always be the fanatical rump of white supremacists in the USA, and they will be out to get him - even MORE so if he proves a success
A clever move from Obama would be to offer Hillary the Health job, finding a way to give the poor full access to medical services, which she has always craved. Would she accept it? - it would put her in quite a spot LOL! I hope he doesn't surround himself with too much of the Clinton machine, that tarnished brand.
Sheikh
At the Start
Polished perhaps ....not 'tarnished' ?!
Last edited:
Not if he wants his health policies carrying out it wouldn't be. Their opinions are just too different on the issue to make it viable, Hillary's a non-starter, the two don't like each other.
Incidentally, wasn't 'shopper Palin' (when she first appeared) presented to us an esteemed Kremlinologist.
So that would be a Kremlinologist who doesn't know what Africa is, nor who the NATFA countries are. I don't think it's sour grapes on McCains part at all (quite the contrary) I think there's a better chance he lost faith in a candidate he didn't really want and as her air headedness became more and more apparent he might even have felt that he couldn't continue to live the lie any longer. I note for instance how in the last couple weeks Liberman was seen by his side more and more. I also note how he staretd to turn on his supporters at rallies who baited Obama, at the same time as she started turning up the rhetoric and calling him a friend of terrorists etc IMO he became embarrassed by her and eventually lost all trust in her competancy to serve. Note his combataive and snarling approach to the first debate, and compare it with his performanc ein the later debates. It was as if he were looking for a dignified damage limitation exercise by then, and almost as if he couldn't bring himself to risk inflicting Palin on the country
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
The first thing people think of when they hear Hillary Clinton and health is disaster.
I wouldn't put it past him, but I suspect he might wonder what kind of monster he's unleashed and that he should maybe try doing something about it...
I wouldn't put it past him, but I suspect he might wonder what kind of monster he's unleashed and that he should maybe try doing something about it...
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
The now apparent incohesiveness/bitterness in McCain's camp comes close to that experienced in the Clinton camp during the primaries, and that takes some doing!
It's often said that the way a candidate manages his campaign is, in many respects, a microcosm of how they will manage the country. If that is the case (and it's certainly an argument that has its merits IMO), then Obama was always the clear-cut choice.
It's often said that the way a candidate manages his campaign is, in many respects, a microcosm of how they will manage the country. If that is the case (and it's certainly an argument that has its merits IMO), then Obama was always the clear-cut choice.
Precisely.
He'd be far better off trying to parcel her off to the UN, but she won't be so stupid as to fall for that and will seek to consolidate herself as a more independently minded (but outwardly supportive) senior Senator. My guess is he won't want her running round capitol hill like a loose canon, and he could do with her filling a problematic, tideous and lower profile brief that disconnects her with the American mainstream and denies her a platform. He needs to get some 'buy in' off her so that she isn't able to start putting distance between herself and an Obama administration. If she over does it though, she risks losing the party.
Inicidentally, if anyone can be bothered to work their way through the various polls, as the curtain comes donw on Dubya and history delivers its verdict, this is a compendium of where the 43rd President sits on the all time pantheon of greatness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
He'd be far better off trying to parcel her off to the UN, but she won't be so stupid as to fall for that and will seek to consolidate herself as a more independently minded (but outwardly supportive) senior Senator. My guess is he won't want her running round capitol hill like a loose canon, and he could do with her filling a problematic, tideous and lower profile brief that disconnects her with the American mainstream and denies her a platform. He needs to get some 'buy in' off her so that she isn't able to start putting distance between herself and an Obama administration. If she over does it though, she risks losing the party.
Inicidentally, if anyone can be bothered to work their way through the various polls, as the curtain comes donw on Dubya and history delivers its verdict, this is a compendium of where the 43rd President sits on the all time pantheon of greatness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I disagree. That war has already been won by Obama, and I'm reasonably certain that the Prez-elect will be quite happy to see her "put distance" between herself and his administration.
La Rodham's time has come and gone as far as a Presidential bid is concerned. Either Obama does great in the next 4 years, in which case he is re-nominated in a heartbeat, or he does not so great - in which case the Republican nominee will most likely hack-up. And even if she did manage to fluke the nomination, the Yanks are not going to take a chance on a women Democratic candidate, after a failed black Democratic candidate.
I'd expect Hillary's influence to wane, and it would be no surprise to see her leave the Senate in the reasonably near future.
I would be amazed if Clinton left the Senate. I would imagine there will be no place in the Obama administration but I would guess that will come as no surprise to her. With a strong democratic representation in the Senate, she will be one of the most powerful and influential members there and plenty for her to do. She is most unlikely to go for the nomination again.
Incidentally which poll/pollsters were the most accurate in the end?
Incidentally which poll/pollsters were the most accurate in the end?
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Rasmussen got the national vote spot on.
Not sure which pollster was best state-by-state, but the guy who runs http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ came up with a prediction model so good that if he was a horse racing fan instead of a baseball fan he'd be making millions.
M
martin
Guest
Can you actually believe Hazel Blears said this today...
"But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.
Ring a bell Warbler?
"But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.
Ring a bell Warbler?
Can I believe it? Yes
Ring a bell? no
In fact it's a fundamental mis-diagnosis of the situation and isn't exactly devoid from a good dollop of contradiction either. People who take the time to contribute to political discussion do so largely because they're interested (as they do on any subject for that matter). People who express opinions also do so in the knowledge that they're likely to solicit disagreement, and for the most part they welcome this. It's called debate, and its the product of an interrogating and fertile mind.
So is Blears attacking people who are interested in politics? If she is, then it sits very uncomfortably with a constant gripe from new labour about falling turn out etc.
I actually feel sorry for the poor civil servant who periodically gets given the task of coming up with ideas for making electoral or political participation more interesting. Let's not forget that new labour introduced postal voting in an attempt to increase turn out, as admitting that politics was turning people off was an unpalatable alternative. To do so would of course strike at the very core of a politicans legitimacy, and if the erosion into turnout continued then it could easily be interpreted as people turning their backs on the whole process and even rejecting it. Now postal voting is a draconian measure that harks back to all the old problems associated with the Vicorian mill owner collecting his workforces ballot papers and casting his own vote 100's of times. There have been no end of documented cases of abuse and fraud associated with it, and no small degree of condemnation from respected global observers too who have compared us unfavourably with apparently notorious third world practices.
This seems to sail over the heads of the politicians though, as increasing turn out and hence participation is seen as the holy grail necessary to lend them a sense of legitimacy, and is seemingly preferable to oblique things like fairness. Other ideas have been suggested in pursuit of the same goal. Variously they include setting up polling stations in supermarkets, internet/ text voting, and even compulsory voting so desperate are politicans for their populations to at least feign some interest in the subject, or at least do so to a level that allows them to claim some level of engagement and interest. Returning to my poor Whitehall Civil Servant though. I'm sure they'd love to tell the politicians precisely why turn out is falling, but to do so would be career suicide for them. For Blears to bemoan those dwindling breed who still show an interest is perverse. That bloggers might seek to investigate and challenge politicans is an equally silly thing to complain about, and ultimately strikes at the very heart of accountability (a central pillar of democracy and often held up as one of its founding strengths). Perhaps she'd rather live in a candy floss world where people unquestionably allowed politicans a free reign and only wrote nice things about them. If its the exposure of scandal, hypocracy and corruption that so worries her, then it would appear that a very simple solution exists?
In the mean time, I'd ask her turn look across the Atlantic and events of this week. What did we see? Record turn out, record registrations of first time voters, record turn out of young voters, and people queuing for up to 5 hours in all sorts of weather in order to vote. I'd like to ask her to consider why this might be? Perhaps a politician had emerged who had energised a whole country with his spirit and aspirations? perhaps someone had something worth saying and he'd duly captured the imagination of a nation?
When someone points a finger at someone else, only one of those fingers normally points towards the accused. Hazel Blears would do well to look which direction the other three normally point in.
Ring a bell? no
In fact it's a fundamental mis-diagnosis of the situation and isn't exactly devoid from a good dollop of contradiction either. People who take the time to contribute to political discussion do so largely because they're interested (as they do on any subject for that matter). People who express opinions also do so in the knowledge that they're likely to solicit disagreement, and for the most part they welcome this. It's called debate, and its the product of an interrogating and fertile mind.
So is Blears attacking people who are interested in politics? If she is, then it sits very uncomfortably with a constant gripe from new labour about falling turn out etc.
I actually feel sorry for the poor civil servant who periodically gets given the task of coming up with ideas for making electoral or political participation more interesting. Let's not forget that new labour introduced postal voting in an attempt to increase turn out, as admitting that politics was turning people off was an unpalatable alternative. To do so would of course strike at the very core of a politicans legitimacy, and if the erosion into turnout continued then it could easily be interpreted as people turning their backs on the whole process and even rejecting it. Now postal voting is a draconian measure that harks back to all the old problems associated with the Vicorian mill owner collecting his workforces ballot papers and casting his own vote 100's of times. There have been no end of documented cases of abuse and fraud associated with it, and no small degree of condemnation from respected global observers too who have compared us unfavourably with apparently notorious third world practices.
This seems to sail over the heads of the politicians though, as increasing turn out and hence participation is seen as the holy grail necessary to lend them a sense of legitimacy, and is seemingly preferable to oblique things like fairness. Other ideas have been suggested in pursuit of the same goal. Variously they include setting up polling stations in supermarkets, internet/ text voting, and even compulsory voting so desperate are politicans for their populations to at least feign some interest in the subject, or at least do so to a level that allows them to claim some level of engagement and interest. Returning to my poor Whitehall Civil Servant though. I'm sure they'd love to tell the politicians precisely why turn out is falling, but to do so would be career suicide for them. For Blears to bemoan those dwindling breed who still show an interest is perverse. That bloggers might seek to investigate and challenge politicans is an equally silly thing to complain about, and ultimately strikes at the very heart of accountability (a central pillar of democracy and often held up as one of its founding strengths). Perhaps she'd rather live in a candy floss world where people unquestionably allowed politicans a free reign and only wrote nice things about them. If its the exposure of scandal, hypocracy and corruption that so worries her, then it would appear that a very simple solution exists?
In the mean time, I'd ask her turn look across the Atlantic and events of this week. What did we see? Record turn out, record registrations of first time voters, record turn out of young voters, and people queuing for up to 5 hours in all sorts of weather in order to vote. I'd like to ask her to consider why this might be? Perhaps a politician had emerged who had energised a whole country with his spirit and aspirations? perhaps someone had something worth saying and he'd duly captured the imagination of a nation?
When someone points a finger at someone else, only one of those fingers normally points towards the accused. Hazel Blears would do well to look which direction the other three normally point in.
Last edited:
Me: << A clever move from Obama would be to offer Hillary the Health job>>
But the whole point is, she would turn it down She would have to....
But the whole point is, she would turn it down
She would have to....
Last edited:
M
martin
Guest
I agree with you Warbler; I think she is simply trying to account for the fact that many people think the country's gone down the drain and would not vote labour again (blame it on the bloggers etc). After our previous debates on here, it is heartening to hear that you do indeed take pride at how someone like Obama has energised politics again, and do want him to do well...I just wish you felt the same about the next prime minister Davy Cameron.
