« A Thatcherite Republican? | Main | It's getting harder and harder for critics to deny Petraeus' success »



"Hillary is indeed a better candidate in the purely professional sense than other presidential contenders. Nary a week passes in which her staff is not praised by pundits for the tightness of its operation."

Geez, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. And Hitler had a pretty tight operation too... does that make them good candidates?

We're grasping at straws here, honey...


If so much comes down to Hillary staying with an adulterer biding time with cigars in the Oval Office and a bimbo just out of her teens, a possible rapetist, and lying scum bag... and we ALL know its his coattails to power drawing her dedication... it doesn't say much about Boris.

Just one more about Hillary, recently from ABCblog:

So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month….

..but she's holding it in Washington, DC….

…at a lobbying firm…

… and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs…

…which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

Yes Hillary, for real people, for the world. Lib/left American Dems, rural folk, and 94% Brits.


Hmmm Boris lecturing people on their marriages, must be irony.

Tony Makara

Hillary is a very good 'Reactive' politician. She can react with speed, energy and ideas to a ready-made situation. A lot of politicians are like that. However I feel there is a significant step-up when it comes to going from being a reactive politician to being a 'Proactive' politician, that is a politician who not only reacts to ideas but also is given to creating ideas, creating structured policy etc. I class David Cameron as a proactive politician. He is very much a one man think-tank. However Hillary Clinton is not at that level. As a fighting reactive politician she is superb, but I don't believe she has the intellectual capacity to make the step-up from being reactive to proactive.

Moral minority

No true Conservative could support Hillary so what's Boris's real agenda?

Simon Newman

My American wife Ingrid is a British Conservative, somewhat to the right of the current Tory leadership, and an American Democrat; she strongly supports Hillary for President. Last time she supported Edwards. Personally I'm also a British Conservative, further to the right than Ingrid, I support Ron Paul for President - unlike her I don't get to vote, though. One reason I don't support Hillary or any of the leading Democrats is that they all want to keep the Iraq war going through fear of being thought weak on defense - which in my book is a real sign of weakness. At least Giuliani genuinely believes in 'invade the world-invite the world'.

Malcolm Dunn

Hillary Clinton seeems to me to much like her husband,a politician who didn't believe in much but would do anything ,say anything that would help/win keep office. It's not much for the American people to aspire to is it?
I think Boris' point was that even Bill Clinton odious as he undoubtedly is,was a better President than George Bush.He's probably right.
Personally I think McCain, Romney or Gulliani would prove to be better than a Bill/Hillary Clinton combination as they would repeat none of the mistakes made by Bush.For that reason I think Boris is wrong.


Well, Simon, I guess being a "British Conservative" means being a Socialist in reality.


And well said Malcolm. Truly. Its a bit exasperating for Americans who want relations with the UK to see so many there think they know what's going on and chose Hillary through media sound bites and particular favorable bias that really has nothing to do with who the woman is and what she is all about.

She's a political animal believing, only in herself.


As I think about it, I'll correct it some. You may be suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrom, just as most Brits are.

Malcolm Dunn

An even more moronic comment than usual Atheling.
Steevo, it's not only the British who have a low opinion of Dubya. Looking at the polls most of your countryman do too. So ,I'm in good company!



There you go again. Ad hominems.

If anyone is "moronic", it's you, who sided with the anti Semite and later realized your error.

Secondly, you're the one who disappeared and came back with a slightly different moniker - why? Is it because you were embarassed by your rudeness which resulted in the blogowner closing threads?

Thirdly, if you can't see the contradictory position of anyone who calls himself a "British Conservative", and says he supports Hillary Clinton, then YOU are the one lacking in reasoning skills.

So far, we have seen NOTHING from you which demonstrates any intellectual acumen. Indeed, you're the one with the pie on your face for supporting an anti Semite simply because your blind hostility forces you to do so. In essence, you have no principles.

Now, I'm waiting to hear more insults from you, particularly the low ones regarding my family.

You're a guttersnipe, malcolm, plain and simple.


Malcolm you're like too many there, striving off image. Hillary's pure image, you can see that to a point but Bush's, and the huge difference in values and perspective with the lib/left, overrides it. Of course he's responsible for your poor image concerning Iraq and Poodledog Blair syndrome, directly deepening the wounds to the psyche.

Like I said, too many of you guys are your own worst enemy. It seems you want your sovereignty, heritage etc. but you're willing to have one who'll allow much greater power and prestige to the UN and EU and at home here build a socialist state one would think 'conservatives' like you should be against.

My what it means to be a Brit with no real consistency, just kinda tortured sensibilities and conflicted values. Oh but if your nation's 'image' never suffered.

Malcolm Dunn

Really Atheling? Let's try to be accurate shall we? To suggest a British equals a socialist is a moronic comment by any standards ,even yours.
I have never insulted your family Atheling as you well know. I don't them.But I know you from your comments here. I would imagine you're as much of an embarrasment to them as you are to your country.
Steevo, it might be an idea to try and write a coherent post for once, this one makes very little sense at all.


"To suggest a British equals a socialist is a moronic comment by any standards ,even yours."

A British what, malcolm? From the lack of "coherence" in your comment, sounds like you're the one who is "moronic".

"I would imagine you're as much of an embarrasment to them as you are to your country."

Guttersniping again, malcolm, it's what you do best, apparently. If anyone is an embarassment, it's you. So far you have:

1. Been responsible for the closing of threads because of your ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated comments.

2. You left for a while, and came back with a new name, apparently in the hopes that no one would recognize that it was you, the "village idiot" of this blog.

3. You sided with Henry Mayhew in order to deride and personally insult me. Later, to your humiliation, you find out that the person you defended was an anti Semite... which left egg all over your face.

4. Now you make snide ad hominems again, and, of course, start the guttersniping about my family.

Now, from your history, malcolm, YOU are the one who has made and ASS out of yourself again.

So, who is the one who is an embarassment to his country???

Simon R

As I've said before, it is entirely plausible for a British conservative to support and admire an American Democrat. On a left/right political spectrum, the centre ground in the U.S. is some way to the right of the centre ground in the U.K, meaning what is considered a centre-right stance in the U.K. may be considered a centre or even a centre-left position in the U.S. The U.S., for instance, is never likely to tolerate the introduction of large-scale redistributive taxation or nationalisation of key industries and services; conversly the U.K is very unlikely to introduce much stronger laws on the rights of the unborn child.

This is also why talk of 'Socialism' from Hillary Clinton seems laughably alarmist to someone from the U.K. Here are some definitions of the term: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism . If you can find one that defines Socialism as raising the tax burden by a couple of percent , or tinkering at the edges of the welfare system, it might give your sentiments some credence. As it is, your (over)use of the word strips it of all meaning.

Thus taking it for granted that the U.S. is unlikely to be raising the red flag anytime soon, the British observer is able to look at the candidates on their own merits rather than which colour rosette they are wearing. And as I've said before, from over the pond, Hillary shines the brightest. She's intelligent, articulate, well presented, and has already proven as Bill's long suffering first lady to be a dignified and elegant presence on the world stage. In other words, a marked and refreshing change from the current incumbent, who comes across, regardless of any hidden depths of intelligence he may possess, simply as a buffoon.


Simon as we conservative Americans keep saying, she is shallow to the bone and doesn't stand for anything really but her own power on the greatest stage she can get. That doesn't mean anything to you, it does us.

Who cares about your definition of socialism. She would prop up with greater authority and prestige both the UN and EU. That is corruption and abuse of power on a grand scale. I think its clear where your hope lies. She would also tax us from cradle to grave and cause dependency on her bureaucracy to know what's best. You prefer that, a lot of us in America don't. And... Hillary is not a very nice person even as those closest to her have attested. Heck most of us know that. The smile is superficial with a load of you-do-it-my-way-or-else. Sorry, but the woman and her plan is not for me.

Malcolm, you are one person in here time and again reduced to offering nothing but ridiculous attempts with the derogatory to discredit. From my estimate of the other members here I don't think there'll be the slightest problem completely understanding exactly what I mean. Whether they agree or not is a different story but that's where others here have it over you, they'll either respond and say why or not.

You seem to be so deluded you either don't know or care how others can see right through you.

Or maybe I've just misunderstood you. If so, you are in serious need to learn to grasp the English language.

One more thing. You've been directly responsible for this site to be censured. Don't you think its about time to consider what an adult really means, even if just over the internet. I would think this nonsense gets... old.


"She's intelligent, articulate, well presented, and has already proven as Bill's long suffering first lady to be a dignified and elegant presence on the world stage. In other words, a marked and refreshing change from the current incumbent, who comes across, regardless of any hidden depths of intelligence he may possess, simply as a buffoon."

Simon, that is so superficial. All you can praise is her appearance and her demeanor. You have said nothing about her policies, her position on the issues, or her lackluster career as a US Senator. Those are the things which are more important than just first impressions.


After reading comments made by our "friends" from Britain, a very good case can be made for severly curtailing immigration from Europe/Britain.


If someone were to ask me what I thought of George Bush, I could probably lead off with a string of rather impressive expletives, but given the same set of circumstances and the same choices available during the last two Presidential elections, I would still have voted for him. It is obvious to me that you don't understand American politics. Everyone "hates" the President in the 7th year of an 8 year administration. Actually it begins right around the 5th year and builds from there.

Please, don't point to Clinton and say, well his poll numbers were "good" even at the end of his Presidency. They were not. His personal approval ratings hovered around 25% just about the same percentage of Americans who voted for him. The rest of the country didn't hate him, indeed, other than laughing at him, they didn't think of him at all. He was purely a media creation, and still exists as a myth for them. I find it amusing how very gullible Euros are, you soak up whatever our media spills on the ground.



"Hillary is a very good 'Reactive' politician. She can react with speed, energy and ideas to a ready-made situation.."

What a lot of BS. did you watch the last debate? Hillary cannot do anything right unless she speaks the words of her handlers. The moment she says anything remotely original she shows her Socialist tendancies.


Great discussion.

The more British and American conservatives interact, the more they see that they have less and less in common.

The Republican party is on the verge of becoming a "Christian Democratic Party" (marginalising libertarians and East Coast Republicans - no wonder Rudy has so much problems). Dobson issues his "fatwas" and the entire establishment shakes.

Second point, Americans are practical people. Labelling people "socialist" just does not cut it. The heart of the matter is competence NOT IDEOLOGY.

The Republican party has a legacy of seven years of incompetence.

We have trillions of dollars in debt, billions in trade deficit, a negative savings rate and a mortgage crisis - yet we believe that we can get away from it by merely cutting taxes to "stimulate spending".

In the past, the Left sounded idealistic, now the Right is increasingly sounding idealistic.

We cannot simply do "a Reagan" on the economy. Reagan is dead. Reagan did not have to contend with 2 billion Chinese and Indians.

We need new thinking.

Jonathan Powell

Labelling people "socialist" just does not cut it. The heart of the matter is competence NOT IDEOLOGY.

I agree, it's not accurate to label Clinton a socialist any more than the leading Republicans are real capitalists--they're all somewhere in the middle. Indeed, I would say Huckabee is more socialist than Hilary, the least socialist candidate clearly being Ron Paul.

However, its absurd to argue that Hilary would be the most competent candidate, she's actually the least qualified to run the US in my view. All she's done is been married to a President and had a few years as a Senator: big deal. When she was 1st Lady, the only opportunity to demonstrate "competence" was her healthcare plan, which was a spectacular failure.

Of the Democrats, Obama has similar experience and appears far more intelligent, and Richardson has been a successful governor. On the Republican side, they've got competence coming out of their collective rear end. Romney has been a successful businessman and Governor, McCain is a war hero and a far more experienced Senator than Hilary, Huckabee has experience running a state, and Giuliani's competence as mayor of NYC is legendary.

It's not fair to say the Republicans have seven years of incompetence: that was under Bush. You have to judge the current candidates on their merits, and you'd have to be crazy to back Hilary on that basis.

And what's all this about having to "contend with 2 billion Chinese and Indians"? What do think they're gonna do, other than make you richer by producing stuff cheaper for you to buy?



No one can accuse Romney or Guiliani of being incompetent. However, they are battling against a PERCEPTION that the Republican party is incompetent.

No one who has witnessed the runaway spending and fiscal deficits of the past seven years would label George Bush (and the Republican controlled congress) as being competent.

The same applies to foreign policy. Bush and the Republicans may have the right ideas about confronting terrorism - but may be sorely lacking in how to effectively IMPLEMENT those ideas.

About the Chinese and the Indians (beware of Greek gifts!!). Low cost goods come at a price - our Manufacturing base and Service sector. You probably think that China and India are only sources of low cost goods - think again.

There are four major Microsoft research facilities: Seattle, Cambridge, Bangalore and Shanghai. The most productive of these facilities are Bangalore and Shanghai. Most of the growth in General Motors came from the Chinese market.

Do you think that the vision of China and India is to serve in perpetuity as a provider of low cost goods to the American people?

We are not dealing with another Japan here (a nation of 100 million), we are dealing with about a third of humanity. China and India have HUGE potential internal markets.

Britain lost its manufacturing base, and it never got it back. Can the US afford to lose its manufacturing base?

Jonathan Powell

The same applies to foreign policy. Bush and the Republicans may have the right ideas about confronting terrorism - but may be sorely lacking in how to effectively IMPLEMENT those ideas.

Again, I don't think it's fair to lump all the Republicans in with Bush, just as I thought it was unfair to judge Bush Jr. on Bush Sr.'s record in 2000: they're different people. For example, McCain was arguing for more troops years before the surge, and has thus shown he does have the competence to implement the ideas. I think the same would be true about Giuliani and Romney (I'm not convinced about Thompson). On the other hand, there's no evidence that Hillary has any ideas OR the competence to implement them if she did.

As far as Congress goes, that's sure to stay Democratic anyway in 2008, so it makes sense to have a Republican President to balance things out (I think the corruption between 2000-2006 was largely the result of one party rule).

On the question of China and India, you need to read your Ricardo. We all stand to benefit form trading with these countries.

The fact there are more people than Japan is irrelevant, the process will be the same. We start by benefiting from labour intensive goods as their wage rates are so low, then over time they will become richer, their wages will increase and they will end up doing similar jobs that we do in the West. Their large internal market is great news, because as they get richer they will seek to buy stuff from us--everyone wins.

Let the market decide who should manufacture what, that's the essence of capitalism. Britain lost it's manufacturing base because our goods were crap, and inefficient American manufacturers should go out of business too (as should farmers who can't compete without subsidies). There will still be a manufacturing sector consisting of those goods which America produces best, as there is in the UK. But the size of the manufacturing sector is not important in and of itself.

Malcolm Dunn

Sorry about the typo Atheling, I did of course mean British 'conservative' but then I guess you knew that didn't you!
Are the republicans really thought of as economically incompetent Maduka? Isn't the blame really with Bush and not the republican party? I know several American economic conservatives working in financial services here who can't wait to have an economically Conservative republican Presidential candidate again.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker