News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

^Clinton (Bill) is still very popular. Even if he doesn't run with her, he's going to be quite a boon to her campaign.
 
^ I would gather that Bill Clinton is even more popular than when he left office. In retrospect and in comparison to the sitting President, I'm willing to wager that the majority of the American public is nostalgic of the Clinton era...

I know I'm Canadian, but I watched 4 minutes of the Bush State of the Union today and switched to YouTube where I watched the spine chilling, euphoria inducing 2000 State of the Union. "Now THAT is a fricken State of the Union" somebody commented
 
Maybe by then Obama will be experienced enough to run as Prez as Hillary's Veep.

16 years? Not thinking far enough. I'm thinking 24. :p
 
Actually, although politically inadvisable, Hillary can theoretically run with Bill as her Vice President. While no person shall be elected to the office of President of the United States more than twice, running as Vice President is permitted.

This opens up an interesting scenario. If Hillary were to step down as President, her Vice President Bill Clinton could once again become President. The 22nd constitutional amendment stating that no person shall be elected President twice does not preclude them from being appointed by other means.

Interesting scenario indeed.
 
The state of the union can be summarised in two words: it sucks.

Read this month's Harper's Magazine article entitled “Republic or Empire: A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States.†by Chalmers Johnson. Johnson is a very reputable former consultant to the Office of National Estimates in the CIA among other things). His job was to analyse foreign countries for US intelligence... now he's applied the analysis (supposedly objective) to his own country. He feels the future looks grim as the Empire crumbles and the country slides into bankruptcy.
 
I don't think personalities matter. The issue is not who runs, but what is to happen, or is to be done, after that person is elected. The United States is a mess in so many ways. It's foreign policy is a mess and its international standing is abysmal. As for its domestic policy, good economic times seem to be the only thing presently holding the show together. However, this does not seem to be a something that will last forever.
 
Kerry's announcing today that he's out. I've always wondered why he went around saying he was going to run again. You weren't able to beat the worst performing US president of all times and you want to run again? Duh!

On the Democratic side, we're still waiting for Gore to make a move or let his chance elapse. Remember Nixon... vice President who lost against JFK, and then ran again years later and won. Gore could do the same, but somehow, I have a feeling that with the Obama + Clinton momentum, he might choose to stay at home and watch.
 
If the engaged, passionate Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth and the 1992 election campaigned, he'd win handily. If the wooden, over-handled, over careful Al Gore of the 2000 campaign ran, he'd wouldn't.
 
Reporters: "Senator Kerry, are you running for president"
Kerry: "Neigh"
 
I saw Gore speak at Yale in 2004. I managed to be about 20 feet away from him. He is (and was) a man transformed--totally relaxed, funny, energetic, but also serious and impassioned--everything a candidate needs to be. Almost, dare I say it, Clintonesque. I think he would win in a landslide and hope he runs.

But more likely, a Hilary/Obama ticket. You heard it here first. Which would go up against McCain/Frist or whomever in the showdown of the century.
 
Great article Ganj, I read that Harper's piece too!

Basically, the U.S. economy continues to be -- sort of -- successful due to unsustainable military Keynesianism. It will crash eventually, we just can't be sure when.
 
Wow. Back in January 2007 who knew it would be Obama-Biden vs. McCain-Palin? And who even heard of Palin 20 months ago?
 

Back
Top