Blog powered by Typepad

« Thank Gawd for the 'telly'! | Main | Anyone for blood? »

Saturday, 29 December 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If the Dems choose Little Madam Cattle Futures, they could conceivably lose the election. (Though it's unlikely.) With Senator Baghdad Osama they are almost certain to win, as long as no personal scandal emerges. As a President, he'd be a wild punt. But Hellary would be dud number three in the sequence Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II. What a blunder our American cousins made in not re-electing Bush I.

This time round I can't even take a guess because I know so little about the candidates - even Noonan seems perplexed. The problem is that one can never be sure, ahead of the game, how any particular player will perform in the top job in the world. I'm reminded that Churchill was more or less universally despised as an unreliable "rat" before his years of glory. Time will tell, but I just hope we have enough time left to find out!

How nice. Ms. Noonan has certainly changed her tune since the 2004 election, when she complained that John Kerry was too complicated... intelligent and bright to be President. That was while she was throwing her pants onstage for George W., since his repetition of brainless slogans was precisely what was needed. I guess the world needed more idiocy in 2004, but times change.

This column, I suspect Ms. Noonan means "Please vote for Giuliani and not that Jesus-freak Huckabee." Pretty ironic when you consider that she's spent the last eight years explaining the importance of faith in the Presidential decision-making process.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, Peggy Noonan is a hack who spends her time trying to keep the war'n'corruption wing of the Republicans in power. You can cast aside the usual assumption that she ever writes anything in good faith.


Peggy Noonan is always where you go for good common sense on the US politics.

My top post until the election is links to the better> polls and commentary. You will be a able to impress (or bore to tears) all your friends and acquaintances with trivia on the US election.


Don’t blame me – I voted for Bush I.

Here is my> endorsement for president.


The strange thing is the Clinton is getting the “endorsement” of much of the other side of the aisle. While she would be the hardest to defeat, and they totally detest her policies, they say she is the only Democratic candidate who they think can do the day to day functions of government.

Here is more than you ever wanted to know about the Barack Obama, the junior Senator from my home state.

He served a term in the Illinois legislature. His election was more an anointing than a vote. There was no Republican candidate in that district. The Chicago Political machine told a popular incumbent not to run against Obama.

In office, he was liked by every one, considered a moderate democrat, and had one of the most left oriented vote records in the states history..

He ran for congress on his own and got smashed.

He entered the Senatorial primary to show the voting strength of a minority part of the party so they would have a claim not to ignored. He became a Senator when both his primary and general elections candidates became mired in scandal. Again he is liked by every one, considered a moderate democrat, and has one of the most left oriented vote records. Reported to the left of Durban?! (Our senior Senator, who is on record for saying all members of the armed forces whenever they served are criminals.)

He has never run in a serious statewide election. His one election campaign against serious opposition was a flop. He has never been the principle sponsor of a bill. He has never held an executive position larger than his own campaign staff.

I wonder who is pulling the stings.

For more. The author is one of the sharpest political commentators in the Chicago area. .>The Barack Obama Phenomenon: If the Democrats Were Smart, They’d Nominate Him. If Voters Were Smart, They’d Defeat Him.

But he's awfuly nicely spoken, Hank. Anyway, what's Hellary's record, other than failing the Bar exams in DC and acting as bagman for her corrupt husband in Arkansas?

FR, I agree that you shouldn't take seriously someone who thought John Kerry "too bright".

'Ratty', I am certainly not in the business of defending Ms. Noonan, the extract in my post being the only thing I have ever read of hers. What is interesting, I think, is that an experienced, inside observer (whatever you might think of her) finds herself unable to endorse any candidate from what must be one of the largest fields of candidates in recent times. That does not bode well for any of us. And I can only repeat her warning which I feel is likely to prove deadly accurate (in all senses of the word 'deadly') that in the fairly near future America is likely to experience "another big bad thing" - although it might happen a lot nearer to us than them - and so we must hope that the next leader of the free world (to use an old job description) is up to the task.

In the meantime I would like to thank Hank for his link to Tom Roeser's site, a new one to me, and the immensely informative essay on the background and character of Barack Obama. Reading it reminded me immediately of those old George V. Higgins novels of Massachusetts politics in and around the State House. Roeser's article will teach you more about the nitty-gritty of American politics than almost anything I have read in years. Go read, People!


My dislike for H Clinton is such that you really should not trust my opinions. But any way.

To give her credit she is one of the best back room campaign mangers and political technicians in the country. Much more capable than Karl Rove has ever been accused of being. If she was running the Democratic National Committee instead of running for office the Republicans might as well stay home.

She is a true believer in radical left everything, but as noted above she knows when to moderate her public presentation to win another day.

She would see that the nonpolitical government functions turn over every day.

And since it is her defense department she would be tough on Al Quaida, though I think she would gravitate toward “Dresden” solutions.


On the negative side if she is not rehearsed well she has the persona of a brick in front of crowds and on television. She does not respond well to impromptu questions. The debates brought this out somewhat where she got one unexpected question and flubbed it. Other than the debates you will try forever to find a video of her in an uncontrolled situation.

She has a tremendous sense of entitlement and expectation of deference. Cutthroat is her preferred method of politics. She is an unwilling and/or poor negotiator. She does not take well to opposition or criticism. A friendly suggestion is not necessarily distinguished from an outright attack.

I think the first summit with European leaders will be fun when she tries to hand them their marching orders.

As I said my opinion is rather biased but I not sure I would want to vote for her if she was supporting positions I agreed with.

(Yes David I’m getting soft in my old age.)

What is interesting, I think, is that an experienced, inside observer (whatever you might think of her) finds herself unable to endorse any candidate from what must be one of the largest fields of candidates in recent times.

David, she's an experencied inside observer as you say.

She's saying "Don't vote for the Jesus-freak Huckabee, because he'll be electoral death for the Republican Party."

As she says, it'd be nice to have an intelligent human being at the helm in America - just remember that she was behind George W. at the last election.

That ought to speak volumes, whether you're an American or not.

For what it's worth - zilch! - I, too, was behind George Bush at both of his elections, not least because both of his opponents were unthinkable - I mean to say, Al Gore????? -pur-lease! My only real problem with George II has been his economic policy in which he cut taxes ("A Good Thing") but spent money like a drunken sailor ("A Very Bad Thing"). His decision to change American foreign policy from being re-active to pro-active can only be applauded even if the execution lacked a little 'savvy'.

I trust that hasn't caused you to choke on your porridge, 'Ratty', but anyway, enjoy your Hogmanay and a very happy new Year to you and yours.

Hank, you confirm my assessment that Hilary is, in line with many modern politicians, a superlative operator *in furtherence of her own career*. However, it's when they achieve power and actually attempt to implement their half-baked policies that they are shown up for the dunces they are. Consider her woeful efforts to introduce a Nationalised Health Service under the first Clinton presidency which crashed without ever taking off! I don't mind my politicians being mean and nasty so long as they're competent and they aim most of their mean nastiness at others! Happy New Year, Hank.

Hilary Clinton=radical left? Ok, I missed a few classes somewhere along the line.

It's ok, I'll get notes...............

The comments to this entry are closed.