At the G8 in Germany this week President Bush played to perfection his
assigned role of chief war criminal and global environment-despoiler, with
an interesting new sideline as nasty bully of those nice, peaceable Russians.
With the President getting an earful abroad, back here in Washington, all eyes
were on domestic politics. The big story of the week was the sentencing of
“Scooter” Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, to an
unusually harsh prison term for his role in a classic Washington scandal.
Just as war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means, so in Washington
the criminal law has become simply a rougher form of politics. In a
litigious society, what you can’t achieve in elections, you can usually get
from a friendly jury.
The case against Mr Libby was always murky. In true Washington style it was
less of a whodunnit than a whodidn’tdoitbuttriedtocoveritup. He was charged
and convicted with lying to a jury about a leak of information he may or may
not have committed that wasn’t illegal in any case. Now Mr Bush will have to
decide whether to extend the politicisation of the legal process by
pardoning him.
But the most memorable aspect of Mr Libby’s sentencing was not the judge’s
draconian view of it all, but the character witnesses Mr Libby called on in
his plea for leniency. For reasons known only to himself, these included
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who wrote letters to say that Mr Libby
was a man who enjoyed their highest esteem.
Given the standing of these men at this moment, it was a little like watching
Lord Voldemort trying to defend himself with character testimonies from
Sauron of Mordor and the White Witch from Narnia.
It was a depressingly revealing moment. This grisly litany of the unsaintly
was an unfortunate reminder of just how low the Republicans have sunk these
days. By the time President Bush leaves office, anyone who has not been
disgraced or convicted will surely be eligible for some sort of medal.
So sorry is the Republican condition that there’s little doubt now, even 18
months out, that the 2008 presidential election is for the Democrats to
lose. The only reason politics remains interesting is that in the past the
Democrats have demonstrated an impressive capacity to stoop to the challenge
– and somehow contrive to lose it. Can they possibly do so again?
The political conditions are uniquely favourable to them. In any ordinary
circumstances, for a party to win a third straight presidential term in
office, as the Republicans would have to do next year, is remarkably
difficult.
In the past 50 years only George Bush Sr did it, after eight years of Ronald
Reagan in 1988. Change for its own sake is not only the faddish prerogative
of voters but democracy’s vital means of renewing itself. You don’t have to
subscribe fully to Lord Acton’s dictum to believe that kicking the buggers
out every few years is the best way to safeguard the constitution.
And that one example of a party winning three straight terms in 1988 came in
exceptional circumstances. The country was at peace and remarkably content;
Reagan, after a rocky patch, was beginning to be transfigured into the
semi-mythological figure he would subsequently become.
This time around, the country is mired in war and deeply ill at ease with
itself. Mr Bush is no Reagan. So for Democrats, these are abundant days.
What could possibly prevent them from assuming their rightful inheritance
next year?
There are, in fact, two small clouds, no bigger than a man – or perhaps a
woman’s hand – on the horizon of this otherwise sunlit landscape for them.
The first is the candidate. If you ask voters the so-called “generic” question
– do you want the Democrats or the Republicans to win the White House next
year – the Democrats win by a mile. But if you put real names and faces on
those generic party titles, something odd happens. The Republicans have the
edge in most of the putative head-to-head matchups. Rudy Giuliani, John
McCain, the suddenly fashionable actor-turned politician Fred Thompson, all
win most of their putative contests against likely Democratic contenders.
Why is this?
The main reason is that, for all the party’s large political advantages, the
character of Democrat leaders still troubles many voters. Hillary Clinton
has spent the past few months demonstrating why she has long been the
party’s favourite for the nomination. She is experienced, knowledgeable,
disciplined and self-assured. But she still makes the hairs on the backs of
the necks of a surprisingly large number of Democrat-inclined voters stand
on end. They just don’t like her, and don’t trust her chameleon-like
political changes.
Barack Obama makes up for Ms Clinton’s weakness with voters by being almost
inhumanly likeable, charming and excitingly new. But his lack of any real
experience is a worry to voters who may not want to entrust their security
to a man who just a few years ago was an ambitious local politician in
Illinois. So, for the time being at least, many people say they’d prefer a
Democrat – just not either of these.
The second obstacle for Democrats is Iraq. This seems counterintuitive,
Surely, the war is primarily what is feeding the surge in support for the
party? The problem is that the Democrats are dangerously close to the point
at which they could be forced to switch from having power without
responsibility for the war to having responsibility without power.
They’ve played a clever game so far of articulating opposition to the war
without forcing Mr Bush to stop it. But it’s clear now that September will
be the crunch time. Enough Republicans will be ready to ditch the war effort
that the Democratic majority in congress will suddenly be free to do what it
has threatened to do – cut off funding for the troops.
If the US begins a substantial drawdown of troops after that, and Iraq and the
region descends into more chaos, the Democrats could easily find themselves
suddenly to blame for a dwindling war effort and spiralling global
insecurity over which they have no real control.
Certainly the Democrats are in the driving seat. But they’ve been there in the
past and steered into a ditch. Surely they can’t mess it up again?
There are two options for the democrats to win a clinton presidency with obama vp or vice versa or a gore with clinton or obama vp
stephen, london,
The Dems WILL LOSE, and so will the Republicans. The Biggest losers, however, as always, are American citizens...
R. Scott, bainbridge, Maryland
The Democrats completely and utterly fail on one agenda most-important to most moderate voters: US security and defense. The Republicans, mostly lead by Rudy Giuliani and surprisingly by Ron Paul have those ideas locked up (depending on your views of the "Bush Doctrine"), as the Democrats prefer the cut-and-run politics of their predecessors.
Confronting our enemy, be it the terrorists, radical Mid-East states, or some crazy dictator in East Asia, is something the Democrats just can't do. Sure, democracy will work on occasion, but when we spend our time rolling over for Iran or North Korea as the Democrats surely will do, we lose precious time defending not only ourselves, but our allies in Europe and Asia as well.
That being said, find a Democrat with a halfway decent defense/security policy, and they're likely to take the "middle-road" voters.
Brad Y, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Michigan, USA
Mr. Baker,
"the Democrats could easily find themselves suddenly to blame for a dwindling war effort and spiralling (sic) global insecurity over which they have no real control. "...are you nuts? Most of what you wrote was pretty close to right on, until you got to this inane closing view. If the Democrats succeed in CAUSING CHAOS AND A US DEFEAT by cutting off funding, they will be entirely to blame and will have had FULL CONTROL. A white flag is a white flag Mr. Baker...and those who fly it are in control of it's flying. Try that dance step one more time...from the top.
Phocus, Prescott, Arizona, USA
The Amnsty Bill will decide. The members who vote for it will never be re-elected. McCain is in a suicidal spiral, and Harry Reid is relying on Presidente Bush to help him. The Republicans are 40% down on income since the Amnesty Bill was anounced. The Demorats have not said how much they are down. I have spoken to 30 Republican Senators offices today, and the numerous fax's, e-mails and phone calls are running at nearly 100% against the Amnesty Bill. So there is your answer-maybe. It is a stupid Politician who runs against this much tide, but that wll decide the Election. Both can lose.
Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas
Mr. Baker
The article explains a lot about the advantages.
Those of you who did not read but skimmed the article ought to look more carefully and write better reviews.
Yttik Smith, Washington DC,
Niall, you call Al gore "unelectable"? Remember more Americans voted for him than for Bush. And Gore would have been President if the fix hadn't been in for Florida.
And Michael, how is appealing to black voters somehow "alienating" white voters?
jnik, Richmond, Virginia
The Dems will lose if either Clinton or Obama runs. The sad but true issue here is that America as a whole is just not ready for a woman or any minority, however competent. You would think they'd have learned about unelectable candidates after Gore and Kerry. I suspect not. Which leaves Rudy (most likely), Mitt (not very) or J-Mc (dark horse)as the next President. On the bright side, nobody could do a worse job than the incumbent, although I hear he's thinking of moving to Albania soon.
Niall, San Diego, CA
i have never voted for republican and I probably never will, but I will not be able to bring myself to vote for any of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination. I REALLY dislike Obama, the way he and Clinton are pandering for the black vote is disgusting. It's fine to try to keep your base, but do alienate the entire population of European descent to do it. The Democrats are also very intent on making the 12 million illegal aliens U.S. citizens just were they can have a larger voting base. My God, they wouldn't even allow an admendment that would block convicted felons from gaining citizenship. We will not win this election because the leadership is whiny and are out of step with what people want. If it wasn't for the war there is not one issue the democrats win against the Republicans. Harry Reid and Pelosi are just so unlikable. This country is falling apart beacuse both parties suck.
Micheal, Douglasville, U.S. GA
A Democratic Party landslide is coming in 2008 from the top of the ticket down. And it couldn't come a moment to soon to wash away the bitter taste of Bush incompetence, Republican corrpution and failed conservative policies. Conservativism has failed America, "neo" or otherwise.
Dan, Santa Monica, California, USA
2 words -Mitt Romney
Andy W, DC, USA
the dems will lose if they put Hillary as the candidate
D, any town, ct
Yes the Democrats can cut off funding for the war in Iraq. That's the best thing they can do to help the Republicans win in 2008. And I will then say a big thank you for the Democrats for this.
Daniel Fernandes, Middle England, UK
Republicans have perfected the art of pandering to the American public's darkest fears of terrorism, crime, and liberal waffling. None of the current Democratic front-runners appear have the fortitude to withstand an onslaught of 30 second ads depicting them as too "weak" to run the country. Don't be surprised to see Al Gore enter the race to rescue his party from another defeat in 2008.
A Nobel Prize this October would close the deal.
Dr. Henry Carrier, Oviedo, Florida, USA
Fred Thompson is actually a politician-turned actor, not the other way around. He was a Senator from Tennessee before his Law & Order debut. Recent events seem to suggest he will once again join the political scene by running for President. Perhaps "politician-turned-actor-turned politician" is the most accurate phrase.
DoYourResearchGerard, New York City,
the one sure way for the democrats to lose is if they nominate hillary clinton. To win you must attract the independents and some from the other party. Mrs. clinton can't get half her won party to vote for her, including me. I refuse to give my vote to her.
Mr. Obama has more experience than Hillary. 8 years in the state senate plus 2 in the us gives him more experience than either of his main rivals.
plus the man is brilliant and thoughtful. he leads.
Mrs. Clinton follows, has not put our any policy proposals and triangulates everything. She is also one who will crush our progressive movement and move us right again. she is not to be trusted. A bush in dem clothing. But, she has the media giving her passes and trying to influence people to vote for her.
vwcat, machesney park, il, usa
To the fellow above who says "Barack has more relevant experience than Dub-ya did," I say: "How do you figure?"
"Dub-ya" was a twice-elected governor of our second largest state. A governorhsip is widely considered to be better Presidential experience than a senatorship. W also had other CEO experience in oil and baseball. Say what you will about the job he has done in any of these capacities (though he's bi-partisanly credited for his work as governor), but his experience certainly outshines that of Obama.
Jason Thomas, Greenville, North Carolina
Clearly it is too early to say who the nominee of either party will be. But, it its not tooo early to say that the front runners from both parties are a decidedly unattractive lot.
Fred Thompson is a facinating figure on the Republican side. A man of no mean experience but seemingly lacking in drive, it is hard to see him winning the nomination, much less the Presidency unles past performance is not an indicator--a dubious assumption.
For the Democrats the only figure of substance that does not posess an equal repugnance is Bill Richardson who is stuck stubbornly in the second tier.
This is worrysome. Given eight years of almost unmittigated disaster the Nation really needs someone who can restore competence and integrity to the Federal Government.
Jim Walton, Washington, DC
Mohammed is not the most popular boys' name in Britain, its Jack.
Mohammed isn't even in the top five.
Besides, how does carrying on with the war in Iraq reduce our Muslim population which is mostly from Pakistan and Bangladesh and, importantly, comprised of British citizens of immigrant descent?
Lee, Liverpool, UK
Hillary is un-electable in a two-man race against any of the top-tier Republicans. If she's the nominee, the only way she can win is if a third-party candidate saps more votes from the Repubs than Dems. The Dems best hope in 08 is Al Gore; but even he's beatable--he won't have Bill's coattails this time, plus he'll be running as a real liberal this time. And when's the last time a true liberal won? Johnson, I think...
A Foster, New York City,
Ref:
The Times Saturday June 9
page 18 Psyche body & soul
Hey, here's a good idea for a new celeb guru programme -
match up the latest guru's to work on each other !
How about trying Patsy Rodenburg being Trinny and Susannah'd!!
(ref picture of the brilliant Patsy)
Helen Breeze, Taunton, UK
The Democrats will fall apart as usual. They got as much mileage as they could out of "Bush sucks; we can do better."
Now they actually have two years in which to dazzle us all with their masterful performance.
But seriously, we need grown-ups in charge if we're going to stop Iran from plunging us into World War.
Reza Pahlavi, Teheran, Iran
To all the Obama apologists. His experience as a state legislator does not compare to someone on the Fed level. Its so "kool-aid" to say he had more experience than W. W was a governor of a large state. It was an executive position with 10x the responsibility of a state legislator. What has Obama run? Nothing. In terms of policy speeches, he has shown exactly that he is inexperienced and down right foolish. He talks with flowery language but he is not presidential timber. One thinks he would "turtle" at the first sign of trouble.
To the Dems winning in 08. Anything is possible but not really likely. Terror and immigration are shaping up to be the biggest issues and the Dems are just weak on those fronts. Until that changes, no White House for you.
Rich, Cadiz, OH
Mr. Baker is clever and incisive as always. Just two complaints:
1) Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are patriots with great courage and vision. They can write me a letter of character reference any time.
2) The biblical reference to a "cloud the size of a man's hand" is probably lost on 90 percent of readers--especially the urbane cynics of Great Britain.
Bill Ireland, Ontario, CA USA
I was going to post an opinion, but Lynne Thomas said it perfectly.
*ahek*, Quite.
Barry Hirsh
Miami, FL
Barry J Hirsh, MIami, FL
Mr. Baker is, as usual, quite correct, except in one particular. He writes, "anyone who has not been disgraced or convicted will surely be eligible for some sort of medal." This is a clear misunderstanding of the Bushevik approach -- the medals are awarded to cover up the blemishes on loyalists' reputations.
As for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the GOP wannabes, they face a tough dilemma: being good loyal Republicans while distancing themselves from the most dreadful POTUS in history.
The trouble with the Dems, as Mr. Baker notes, is that they are Democrats.
Jeff Myhre, New York City, USA
it is a joke to call HRC experienced. She is a 2 term JR Senator period. Her husband's experience is not hers. O'bama, Thompson and the many other 2 term Senators have equal experience. That said, the country would continue to do well by avoiding the gasbag Senate as a source of Presidents.
T Greene, Northbrook, IL
The Democrats problem is that they have painted themselves in a corner - they will soon confront the real issues of fighting a war against an enemy that has to continue fighting in order to survive and remain relevant to its large base of angry followers. Islamic facism will be around whoever rules the Whitehouse. If the Democrats believe that changing the war on terrorism is a matter of shifting the strategy to one of a policing issue, they are horrible mistaken. The Democrats will now confront an electorate that needs a clear strategy of how Islamic facism will be ultimately destroyed - lets wait for these answers.
John Catsicas, Johannesburg, South Africa
"it was a little like watching Lord Voldemort trying to defend himself with character testimonies from Sauron of Mordor and the White Witch from Narnia."
There's that firm grasp of reality that has made Baker such a great columnist. That sits right up there with "we were better off with Saddam" and "BUSH LIED!!"
TallDave, Des Plaines, Illinois
Mr. Baker makes some very good points. I would only add that Bush pere's win to extend a third term for Republicans was not a win for Bush pere. Peggy Noonan, in a recent "Wall Street Journal" column pointed out , as Mr. Baker came close to saying here, Bush pere was essentially elected to Ronald Reagan's third term. Reagan, of course, was Constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.
Ms. Noonan also pointed out that Bush pere didn't understand this, and thought he was popular in his own right. He proceeded to govern not as Reagan governed, but as a typical East Coast establishment Republican. And he blew the Republican coalition all to pieces, not to mention losing the election to a previously not-too-well known governor of Arkansas.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C. / USA
Does anyone in the media care about accurately representing the views of the majority of Americans? I know our media doesn't - I was hoping for more balanced coverage overseas. Most of us are not to the far left. The Democrats do not have political advantages, despite Bush's blunders, because most of us don't share their dream of a socialist America. Many of us accept being in Iraq because we get mail from our service people over there, who write hopeful, optimistic letters, none of which ever seem to effect the US media's one-sided coverage. Thank God for the internet. But, the hot issue here at present is illegal immigration. Right now, all the future Republican presidential candidate has to do is promise that he will enforce our current immigration laws and he's a shoe-in.
Lynne Thomas, Athens, Georgia, USA
Sadly the British perception of American politics gets no clearer after articles like these. How could you miss the point that the Democrat led congress is already less popular in the US than Bush?
It is all up in the air. The greatest danger for Democrats re Iraq is that they will get blamed for the perceived defeat that withdrawal from Iraq would represent. The greatest danger for Democrats in general is that have a hard time articulating what they actually stand for as opposed to against. For Republicans the greatest challenge is to prove to their base - which is capable of defeating the democrats - is that they have rediscovered the principle of small accountable government. A concept abandoned by party and president alike.
Graham Hallett, Apalachin, NY
I only wish my state had an open primary system, because I would love to ensure that Hillary gets the nomination of the Democratic Party; frankly, she will get trounced by Rudy. As for the so-called skeletons in Rudy's closet mentioned by an earlier poster, Hillary's closet has more bones than a Khmer Rouge prison camp. Furthermore, her socialism-lite crap may play well in Seattle, but it won't win her votes in Middle America.
Mark , Louisville, USA/KY
The libs are in a box. They won saying they would end the war and get the world on our side. Not going to happen. The war on terror is real. If you win you have to lead and defeat it. Hard to do when you have told the far left of the party that it doesn't exist. Talk is cheap. Governing requires coming to reality. tough for the far left to do.
jc, jerome, idaho
Americans don't vote for a party, they vote for the individual candidate. As Mr. Baker pointed out, the Democrats have real problems in that area. Hillary is too unlikeable and polarizing, so even though she will be nominated as the Democratic nominee, she won't win the election. Obama is likeable but not ready for prime time when you start asking him for in depth answers to real problems. He is loaded with charm and platitudes in equal measure. Edwards is not going to win because he doesn't have the finances to compete with Obama and Hillary. That leaves us with the Republicans. Romney, Guiliani and eventually Thompson will be the three front runners. Sadly, McCain who is courageous beyond measure, won't end up among the top three. Any of the top three Republicans will anhilate any one of the Democrats. It is way too soon to look at the numbers. Once each party has their candidates, watch the numbers change, as Dick Cheney would say, big time.
Paula Higgins, Marietta, Georgia USA
The most remarkable thing that Fred Thompson did in the Senate was to vote "not guilty" at Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. 106th Congress, 1st Session, vote 17 The support for Fred Thompson, who was clearly out of step the his party leadership on the issue of Bill Clinton's impeachment, shows how desperate the Republicans are.
Jim, Chicago, Illinois
The Democrats have no political advantage over Republicans. Despite Bush's blunders and the mainstream media's pro-Democrat drumbeat, most Americans do not embrace their socialist vision. This next election will be an uphill climb for them.
Lynne Thomas, Athens, Georgia, USA
But the Democrats do have a secret weapon: The Independent Voter -- no party loyalty and increasing in numbers by the day. No telling how strong their numbers will grow in the 591 contentious days Bush has left.
Valerie Sanford, Woodland Hills, CA
You ignored the biggest problem faced by Democrats, SECURITY! An attack by the terrorists would send most Americans looking for security over all else. the Republicans still hold the high cards there.
Jeff, Greenwich, CT
Sorry Rocky, but Dub-ya was not only the Govenor of Texas, but a successful govenor of Texas. In America we like to elect Govenors to the highest office, and not Senators.
Bob, Minneapolis, USA
There is a third reason why the Democrats are likely to stumple in the US presidential sweepstakes. In their efforts to appeal to left-wing primary voters, all of the major Democrat candidates are on record in favor of tax increases. This will be used against them in the run-up to the general election.
Gregg, Sacramento, California USA
I have never seen a poll showing Thompson leading any democrat. McCain is about even and Rudy is the only one who is leading.
Once we get past the primaries, the gop may be sorry the nominated him if they do, a lot of skeletons in that closet.
The right wing noise machine will do it`s best to try to scare America again but I think they have been to the well to often for that to work.
jones, olney , md
Mr. Baker,
You write, "The Republicans have the edge in most of the putative head-to-head matchups." I don't believe that is really true. Check out the head-to-head polls at RealClearPolitics. Most are within the margin of error, but Romney loses to all 3 top Dems; McCain loses to all 3 top Dems; and Giuliani beats 2 of 3 but loses to Edwards. The margins are close, and it's still early, but don't discount the Democrats for their candidates just yet.
John Jenkins, Newport News, Virginia, USA
Cut off funding for the Iraq war. Great Idea!! Then we can focus on dometiic issues such as universal taxpayer funded, government controlled healthcare and immigration amnesty reform while al-qaeda and Hezbollah establish a terrorist training camp in Iraq after our pullout. This will make the war on terror much easier......for the Islamists.
Robert Lovretich, Niceville, FL
Why do so many outside people view America as deeply illed or droubled? I'm very happy in general. Our foriegn issues could be better to say the least but at home the only thing that bothers me is that the price of gas went up 5 cents. Inflation is kept low, I have a job and 95.5% of Americans do, I get paid well, the economy is growing, the housing market has stabalized or will soon and we're going to have an exciting election coming up. I'm excited not troubled!!
mark, washington d.c., usa
Sure, Eric. When Joey Scarborough asks about Fred's bimbo wife "Do you think she works the pole?" (and he's a conservative Republican!) I think that you can be assured that she will be a major issue in the campaign - and the Republican base hates Hollywood, as do you I assume. This, along with his massive one term experience as a lawmaker and his pro-choice agenda (unless he's flip flopped this week), wilt be one of many issues up for discussion...
This is the weakest GOP field in living memory. Mr. Thompson obviously thinks that people like Eric will think of him as a Reaganite figure because of his Hollywood credentials.
I go along with the BBC's Justin Webb - British newspapers are a joke. They're more interested in pandering to their readers' prejudices than reporting the news.
(And I'm British - Glasgow born and bred..)
Allan, New York, USA
Regarding your comment, "By the time President Bush leaves office, anyone who has not been disgraced or convicted will surely be eligible for some sort of medal." Many of those that have been disgraced or convicted may well have a medal by the time Busch leaves office.
Great analogy with Lord Voldemort, Sauron, and the White Witch.
Eric, the jury is out on Fred Thompson. He and his policies are relatively unknown and his standing in the polls will change as people get to know him. Many Republicans are embracing him blindly because they don't like the other choices and out of longing for a Reagan type person. It remains to be seen whether or not Fred Thompson can fill that void.
Jason, Shoreview, MN
Dlake:
How can you say that Barack Obama is more experienced than Hillary or John Edwards? I'm not even a Democrat but to assume that a state senator can even come close to the sorts of global governance the President presides over is laughable. Undeniably, Hillary, as Senator (and as a First Lady who worked heartily for universal healthcare and other initiatives), has accumulated much experienced in an executive position, much more than the other two. Barack Obama is a little boy, who in 4 short years, has been guided by partisan politics in votes rather than deciding what's best. Even the Iraqi War, which he strongly opposed, was not decided on his watch and frankly, while a disarmingly charming man, he has little credibility to get things done. Without a knowledge of a national security apparatus or even a good fundamental grasp of true red tape bureaucracy, he's a child trying to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Greg, Levittown, NY ,
Except of course Mohammed isn;t the most popular boys name. All the headlines read Mohammed 'Tops' names, but read closer and you find it isn't THE top name, just near the top. 'Jack' actually topped the poll.
sean, London,
Ah, Stirling: Only 17% more? Reminds me of my trip to Bicentennial Boston, in the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts. Watching/listening to a multi-media presentation of sorts, a Southie croned, "If Republicans run Jesus Christ, and the Democrats run a monkey, you vote for the monkey!" (And no, I'm NOT making this up!) There are far too many folks who are going to vote their party line even if, objectively, their overall interests are hurt. Since we're very much a 50 - 50 nation, I'm not going to lay a bet on any outcome yet. Let's just hope and pray whoever wins truly has the interests of our nation at heart.
Mike, Honolulu, Hawaii
Aren't all the candidates equally nauseating ? With the possible exception of Ron Paul, who is way too old.
Chris, Chesterfield, UK
I argue that Rudy Giuliani will be the next President. Here is my logic. Due to the accelerated primary schedule, he is assured of his party's nomination because he will win most of major states primaries with highest electotal votes. Then in general election, all he has to do is to "flip" one or two blue states. Based on several reputable state polls (not national polls), he is well poised to do just that. On the other hand, no Democrat (with the exception of Al Gore) has the ability to do the "reverse flip" of winning enough red states to nulify Giuliani's blue wins.
siliconvalleypol, San Jose, CA
We Democrats have no more than a 50% chance of winning in 2008.
Bush's current approval rating is 33%. That means a third of the electorate will vote GOP regardless; they could run Satan for President with Beelzebub as his running mate and they'd get that vote.
Which means they only have to pick up another 16% to win -- due to the Electoral College, the Republicans (who do better in small rural states) have a built-in advantage. The Democrats need a solid 51% to get the EC votes.
We're going to nominate either Clinton or Obama. Clinton has high negatives, and as for Obama... please, let's be realistic.
Either might be able to beat Bush. But we're not going to be facing Bush. We're going to be facing either Guiliani (the Republicans are being smarter than I thought they would be, there) or McCain, both candidates who appeal strongly to independent voters.
It's hard to imagine that either won't do 17% better than Bush come November 2008.
S.M. Stirling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
I noticed that when you did your head-to-head predictions, you did not mention John Edwards. According to head-to-head results posted at Real Clear Politics, Edwards beats all Republican opponents, and by wider margins than Clinton or Obama. Unfortunately, he's nowhere near leading in the primary vote. It looks like the Dems will once again choose the candidate most likely to lose, as they did in 2004.
Jim Hart, Cary, NC
In order to gain power democlowns will do anything. Abandon troops, sacrifice the safety of Americans, allow innocent Iraqi's to be slaughtered by terrorists pose no obstacle to their quest for power .
When Iran has the bomb and uses it , the clowns in the democratic party will simply blame George Bush, long after he is out of power. Sit back relax, hope you don't live near ground zero and enjoy the show....
Steve, Tucson, Arizona
For a party to have won thrice in 50 years sounds like it qualifies for exceptional until you consider that 50 years offers only 6 opportunities for winning a third term. One in six is hardly exceptional and the picture changes considerably when you go back another 50.
Jim, Crofton, USA
The name Mohammed is now the most popular boy's name in Britian. With that in mind, Brits better hope that a Republican gets into office and not a cut 'n run Democrat.
Cowgirl, Califonia USA,
Steered into a ditch ? Historically, driving off bridges has been more like the truth.
Stan(expat), Texas, USA
To Eric of Massachusetts,
Presumably you are assuming that, if he enters the race, Fred Thompson will stand on a Law and Order platform which will prove irresistible?
John Kidd, Brisbane, Australia
Nonpartisan technical analysis by Newsweek Magazine says that there are 11.6 million tons of military material to be brought home from Iraq. Based on past performances, that would take about 5 1/2 years. So, now, what withdrawal timetable is realistic?
John D. Froelich, Upper Darby, Pa
i can say that many democrats do not like or trust Hillary. there are many reasons for it. But, the msm keeps trying to promote her and cheerlead for her hoping to sway people in her direction. along with this is the continuing mantra of experience and substance regarding Mr. Obama.
he spent 8 years in the state senate and did alot of important legislation. He really has more experience in government than Clinton or Edwards.
The other thing is that mr. obama has given several policy speeches in the past few months but, it is never notice, discussed or talked about on the air.
Some has to do with the media's obsession with silly and fluffy entertainment stories like what paris hilton is doing. some has to do with continuing the myths about Obama in order to further push Clinton at the democrats.
dlake, machensey park, , illinois, USA
Mr Baker
The Dems will not be in the Executive Office until 2016 at the earliest.
An elephant, pun intended, is about to enter the room: Mr Fred Thompson.
It is all over now for Hillary, Billary and Obama...
Eric, Plymouth, Massachusetts
There's alot of Independent movement out there, which could sway the vote either way. Many are moving away from their tradidtional parties and looking hard for effective and honest leadership.
American citizens want to clean their own "house" first, and will watchdog their legislative & judicial branches closely. For President, I'm looking for someone to bring the people together....
C'mon Barack!
W.A. Harben, Lawrenceville, Georgia
Donald what are you talking about? Where are you getting that number, 80%? Are you serious? The majority of the fighting is between Sunnis and Shiites, who are systematically removing each other from mixed neighborhoods. I'm not going to try and pull some number out of a hat claiming that, oh, let's say 95.67% of attacks are carried out by them, but if you have read the news at all you would know that most of the fighting is sectarian. Even U.S. military has completely recognized this. Why haven't you?
I still don't think we should pull out, but that is for different reasons than not living in the real world and thinking that there isn't a civil war going on, or something that is too complicated to call a civil war because there are too many factions (i.e. Sunni groups now fighting Al Qaeda groups, who are also Sunnis)
Edward, London, UK
Both Donald Last and Roger Lamb make sense, if for somewhat different reasons. The war can cut both ways, or perhaps all ways. How the war is defined, claimed, and observed will influence a great deal. This is especially true for Al Queda. If Al Queda lies low, engages in just "normal" violence, and does not try to pull off something spectacular, voters may be eager to elect specific Democrats. If something spectacular happens, however, and if it is tied to Al Queda, the reaction might be significantly different, putting Democrats into a bind.
James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.
It would indeed be interesting to watch Gore lose again, but the low polling numbers he's getting against his Democratic peers indicates that even his own party realizes that he won't pull the votes necessary to secure the office. . . in spite of huge Republican blunders and his new Global Warming pseudo-religion.
Matthew, Stockton, CA
The problem for the Democrats regarding Iraq is that no matter how unpopular the war, losing the war is less popular. Most people accept that you don't just quit your job because you don't like it or wish you'd waited for a better offer. We require a better altenative, first.
The only alternative the Democrats offer is an abject withdrawal to be followed by slaughter and disgrace. That won't get them elected.
Ron Bales, Tampa, Florida, USA
Donald Last, from Worthing UK:
It's encouraging to see intelligent analyses from your country. Don't get me wrong; I've got tremendous respect for the British, but there's been such a wave of leftism that's taken over most of the world, spewing venom such as President Bush and now former Prime Minister Blair as being the true monsters of the world, not the insurgents in Iraq.
Any sober analysis clearly shows that the vast majority of the evil being caused in Iraq is by al Qaeda, not a civil war by otherwise peaceful Muslim Iraqi citizens. And this is what Bush has said all along from the start of the war: we want to gather them there [Iraq] to fight them with the best military in the world, so we don't have to fight them here [the U.S., U.K., etc] with our police, firefighters, & emergency service personnel.
Now people complain that we brought chaos into a country that was the epitome of chaos under a brutal dictator that violated 17 U.N. resolutions & brought war on himself.
Pcon-T, Irvine, USA
Interesting take on Senator Clinton.
She's leading by a large margin in most Democratic polls, holds her own in every head-to-head poll, and we all seem to agree she's "experienced, knowledgeable, disciplined, and self-assured."
Democrats appear to be pleased with all their candidates and have very little of the angst that polls show Republicans are going through.
And yet you state an opinion as fact that she makes Democrats' hair stand up!
Clinton Haters are very loud and very indefatiguable, but don't let them fool you. They whine about her. A lot.
Clinton just had a campaign event where she had THOUSANDS of attendees, yet the ever-wrong pundits hinted it was a failure because she invited people to come casually and they came in business attire!
Personally, I think the thought of a woman President scares the beans out of some of the good old boys in the club.
Personally, I think they should get use to the idea.
Jan, Nashau, NH, USA
The Amnesty Bill that was shelved will sink the Democrats. The fact that they will introduce it again will cement that.. The Republicans who supported this vile Bill will be challenged by Candidates who will have the grass roots support. On the Democrat side, Mrs Clinton is disliked than Cheryl Blair. There is no way that she will win. I doubt she will get the nomination.
Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas
The Democrats will lose out on Iraq because the US is condemned to stay there. Some 80% of the insurgency and mayhem is caused by Al Queda. There is not a civil war in Iraq. Withdrawal means loss of any influence or control over what happens in Iraq, and consequently the Middle East. To pull-out means handing victory to Al Queda.
Donald Last, Worthing, UK
"Enough Republicans will be ready [in September] to ditch the war effort that the Democratic majority in congress will suddenly be free to do what it has threatened to do – cut off funding for the troops."
-That's a big call. More likely, come September, a degree of progress will be claimed. Claimed, not observed. But the claim - from high sources - will secure enough Republican senators to further secure a Presidential veto over any sensible Iraq-related bill that passes.
As to concerns about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they are best resolved by Democrats by nominating Al Gore.
Roger Lamb, Brisbane,
He was charged and convicted with lying to a jury about a leak of information he may or may not have committed that wasn’t illegal in any case"Is this not also obstruction of justice as to who did the leaking?He lied,was convicted of lying and was sentenced to 30 months.As for draconian,I would suggest that as a public servant he should have set an example for honesty under oath.A pardon is only expected because of the character of Bush.Any other president would shy away from charges of conflict of interest but not this fool and Cheney.
JohnP, Newcastle, UK