« 'If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?' | Main | Is America turning left? »

Comments

Michael McGowan

Strikes me that Senator Obama has got the measure of Hilary "57 Varieties" Clinton.

Ali Gledhill

Clinton said: "You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say what you think if you're running for President".

That's a vote-winning strategy if ever I saw one.

Ami

If Republicans are counting on Obama and Clinton destroying each other and clearing a path for them that indicates that their candidates aren't very strong. A party should put forward someone to vote for, not depend on the other party to put forward someone to vote against. So far I'm not impressed with either side.

Niallster

Chances of Hillary getting the nomination 100%.

Chances of Obama getting the nomination 0%.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is just plain stupid.

Hillary just has to hold her temper, almost impossible for her I know, and just wait for him to go away.

Simon Newman

"The biggest threat to American security is in the north-west provinces of Pakistan". - Barack Obama

This is true, and something both media and politicians were denying from the end of 2001 until very recently.

Hilary's view is that we shouldn't discuss the truth, that doing so is un-Presidential. I doubt that's a view that will garner much support among Democrats.

Tony Makara

Obama has clearly burnt himself out. He is one of those politicians who looks impressive in bursts but over a prolongued campaign it becomes obvious that he isn't presidential material. I watched Hillary the other night speaking on CNBC about sub prime and she looked much more assured than Obama.

Simon Newman

"They are now hoping that in their desperation to get the nomination Clinton and Obama will severely damage each other."

Since Obama is running on integrity and truth-telling at the risk of seeming naive, and Hillary is running on 'you can't handle the truth', it's likely Hillary who will emerge damaged with the Democratic base. Of course the mainstream media also believe we can't handle the truth (various truths) so are likely to support Hillary.

Overall, the charge that Hillary appears to be a creature of the Establishment rings true. So I do think the Republicans have some grounds for optimism here if they find themselves up against Clinton.

Steevo

Its 15 months before the election, that's a long time in the US. Insofar as voting either republican or democrat for the most part this "tension" has potential significance only with the 'undecided' voters: not the most perceptive and informed individuals. They will decide the election, unfortunately... and that decision can be made the morning they go and vote.

Tony Makara

Steevo, its going to be interesting to see the impact that the sub prime crisis is going to have long term. Hillary has suggested a one billion dollar federal fund to help prevent foreclosures. Thats going to be a very popular proposal. Looks like Hillary is ready to jump on lenders if she becomes president.

fairdealphil

Fresh hope for the Republicans due to Obama-Clinton tensions...?

Nope.

The Republicans have two hopes.

Bob Hope and No Hope.

Libertoryan

Who wants to give the Republicans hope? It is a corrupt party of the fascist Christian right. I vote Tory but I think the GOP is a fascist party and think most Tories would support the Democrats.

Steevo

"Looks like Hillary is ready to jump on lenders if she becomes president."

It'd be nice if we could believe any conservative/libertarian angle Hillary 'proposes' now Tony. I certainly could wish she's sincere at least with some of the stuff she claims to stand for running for president, but frankly I think she's nothing more than a calculating power-hungry woman, who will say anything.

Yo, Libertoyian... finally we have an honest Brit. Well... unless you're a conservative Yank in disguise?

atheling

"Who wants to give the Republicans hope? It is a corrupt party of the fascist Christian right. I vote Tory but I think the GOP is a fascist party and think most Tories would support the Democrats."

Do you know what "fascist" means? I think not, since you bandy it about carelessly without any pause for logical thought.

Fascist is not allowing dissent. In case you're not aware, back in the 2004 election, a Democrat named Zell Miller dumped his party when he retired. He was fed up with the Democratic Party's rigid ideology which did not allow dissent, i.e. dissenting opinions on hot issues like abortion, gay marriage, the environment, etc... If you watched the Republican National Convention you would have seen members attend who all differed in varying degrees regarding those issues AND permitted to speak their minds.

Currently the Democratic Party wants to re-introduce the "Fairness Doctrine" which would legally force the airwaves to broadcast liberal talk radio, even though they failed miserably in a competitive free market. That's fascist.

Fascist is vandalizing vehicles owned by Republicans during election day so that they won't be used to transport Republican voters to their election booths (This was committed by local DNC operatives). Fascist is bribing homeless people with cigarettes and booze so they vote Democrat during an election. (Guess who did that? See a trend here?)

If Libertoryan is an example of "conservative" in Britain, then "conservative" is no longer the correct word.

Blind, absurd, reactionary, and just downright STUPID. Take your choice.

Libertoryan

We can argue all day about the definition of a conservative, but to me it's mainly about limited government and personal freedom. It is not about pandering to the batshit crazy Christians on the side.

Libertoryan

Oh and all parties have their dirty tricks but only one has managed to steal an election with 500 votes.

atheling

Good God, how old are you? 12?

RobinClash

Atheling, just because Libertoryan may only be 12 years old, doesn't mean he isn't correct.

White protestant fundamentalism is just as aborhent and devisive as Mulsim fundamentalism.

Niallster

'only one has managed to steal an election'

So you've heard of John Kennedy then.

Simon Newman

RobinClash:
"White protestant fundamentalism is just as aborhent and devisive as Mulsim fundamentalism."

Try living under both and see if you still think that!

No way is "white Protestant fundamentalism" anywhere near as bad as the Muslim variety.

Nor does the US Christian right bear much resemblance to Fascism, which was a modernist-progressive ideology.

There are some resemblances between US Neoconservatism and Fascism - the Leader Principle, Permanent War - but this has as much relation to Christianity as Italian Fascism did, ie not much. And fascism was far more violent to dissenters; as noted above in the USA it's more usually the Left who think it's ok to resort to political violence.

bundyfan

I know this sounds really petty but it bothers me the way Obama pronounces Pakistan. He says "pock-i-ston." Here in GOP country it is pronounced "pack-i-stan." He sounds like an elite snob who wasn't even raised in America.

atheling

robinclash:

If you can't see the difference between Islam and Protestant Fundamentalism then it's no wonder you are going to be living under Sharia Law in 50 years.

S. Baker

"It is a corrupt party of the fascist Christian Christian right." I am not going to even go there! But I whole heartily agree with this, "If you can't see the difference between Islam and Protestant Fundamentalism then it's no wonder you are going to be living under Sharia Law in 50 years." Being an Anglophile it sickens me to read garbage about right wing christians and your country's about to be smashed by Islam. Wake up you fools and show a backbone!

Simon Newman

atheling:
"it's no wonder you are going to be living under Sharia Law in 50 years."

I think if it happens it will be long before then. Elements of Sharia are already spreading rapidly.

bundyfan

Simon Newman

Can you explain what you mean here:

"There are some resemblances between US Neoconservatism and Fascism - the Leader Principle..."

I certainly understand the leader principle as it pertains to fascism but I don't see it in action with the NeoCons. My first reaction was to take offense but I thought I'd ask you to explain in case I misunderstand you. It seems like you are suggesting that Bush inspires some kind of awe and militeristic devotion. Is this what you mean or do I misunderstand you?

Simon Newman

bundyfan - I think the current US administration propounds a (much milder) version of the fascist leader principle; that the Leader is to be trusted not questioned, that his powers are (and must be) essentially unlimited. Certainly comments by Gonzales and other White House staffers have said this pretty explicitly. This seems a long way from the traditional understanding of the US Presidency.

Feel free to take offense. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker