Ewww .... just ... ewww.

Bob

I think what you are saying is true, which is what makes it frightening. Murdoch is smart enough to know Hilary is not liberal, will not oppose free trade, stand up for unions, or hold the fire to big business. She is socially liberal, but fiscally she is conservative, and that is all Murdoch cares about.

She really is a Fox News democrat

Maybe they want Hilary because they think she would lose, as opposed to Gov. Warner, Kerry or Gore.

The key to Clinton's success is her coming up with a single-payer health insurance plan supported by a number of big corporations, including the car makers and Wal-Mart.

If she can do that, she'd do two things:

1) Have a viable plan to present the electorate
2) Show she is a creative, capable politician able to cross party lines and interests

I assume she is out there right now trying to do just that.

oh Rupert ... that's different

Murdoch has always had "money talks" as his primary ideology. Look how he flip-flopped on communism when China threatened to keep Fox out.

What's this? So many reference to TNR in the Washington Monthly site. Are they in bed now?

Tell me why I would vote for Hillary if she ran as the Democratic candidate in 2008 with Murdoch's backing?

My God, it's a nightmare.

It's like "let's get an editorial endorsement from Julius Striecher in Der Steurmer."

"That way, we can co-opt all those Hitler Social Democrats!"

Sorry for the Godwin's violation -- NOT.

Bob

Striecher = Streicher

Tony Blair didn't work out to well for Britain in the end did it? In fact it's hard to see who's going to win the unpopularity race between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair.

Maybe selling out his soul to Mr Murdoch, 10 years ago was more revealing than people wanted to admit. It certainly looks like he was ToRY Blair rather than a progressive leader now, doesn't it.

And that leads to a second question: is it good for the US to have Mr. Murdoch here doing his thing? Is it good to have rabidly political media empires savagely attacking opponents? Is it good to let Mr. Murdoch build such a huge media empire?

No, I'd argue Mr. Murdoch isn't good for America, and the fact that Ms Clinton is doing such a cynical deal reinforces the impression that progressive (OK any) democrat has to find someone, almost anyone, to stop her.

Turning around a newspaper's editoral stance is a bit easier than carrying out a volte-face on an ideological 'news' network. Murdoch didn't have that worry in the UK, because Sky News has to abide by basic broadcasting standards that Faux News couldn't follow. You're more likely to see it used to bash Bush from the right than to embrace Hillary.

Murdoch won't jump, though, until it looks like 2008 is an inevitable lock for the Dems.

What needs to be remembered about the Currant Bun's endorsement of Blair is that it elided the stuff that it didn't like, and emphasised the authoritarian stuff it liked in the Thatcher days. Also, Trevor Kavanagh, the Sun's political editor, is probably the most influential journalist in British politics.

Murdoch loves power and money. If Fox ratings slump because the Zeitgeist has turned Liberal then that hurts him in the pocket. Whats he gonna do?

(Ans. Make nice with liberals)

Methinks he smells the wind changing direction.

It is now blowing away from the current garbage dump of a regime... and he is hedging his bets.

Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter as long as you can control them.

See what David Sirota says about all this. He isn't so enthusiastic. www.davidsirota.com
PS the "Drum Major Institute" isn't a snarky pun about Kevin.

You have no idea how cynical and powerful Murdoch is. If Hillary is getting backed by Murdoch then she will be owned by him lock stock and barrel. If she thinks otherwise she is a fool.

Why do you think Tony Blair supported the Iraq war even when they realised they weren't going to get a UN resolution? Every single one of Murdoch's papers around the world were pro-war and Blair knows that without Murdoch's backing he's toast.

Murdoch can see that a Democrat is probably going to win the next Whitehouse. He can't do much about that. But he can decide which one, and if gets in early he can own them.

Well, considering how many sides of her mouth Hilary talks out of at the same time, this isn't a bad strategy for Murdoch. She gets a swing at the Presidency by neutralizing Fox News and he gets a trained seal in a most powerful position.

I'm wondering whether this isn't also the first crack in the business community deciding to try to co-opt the Democrats as well. Either that, or they're starting to get a feel that the pendulum has swung as far as it should go to the right, are ready to push it back the other way, and want to pick up Democratic politicians while they're eager and cheap.

If we weren't in such a serious position, I'd say Pass the Popcorn. Watching Fox News push Clinton is going to be hilarious.

still working it out:

Hillary already has a "lock, stock and barrel" owner: AIPAC

The Clown in the Whitehouse has spoiled the land for the Right.Murdoch knows the Neocons played there hand and lost all the moves they made only work if they maintained power.Now the noose tightens the right can climb back into there hole for forty years again bye bye.

Murdoch wants Hillary the win the Democratic nomination is all there is to this. Hillary will be destroyed by the Right and in the elections. She does not have a chance. That's why Murdoch is helping her now; helping her up onto the scaffold. Nightmare on Hillary Street.

Blair is not only corrupt, but cheap. The perfect politician to Murdoch's mind. I shudder to think that Hillary also meets his approval.

I'm with page3 and Maxwell -- Murdoch is backing her because he thinks she'll lose in the general. You can't convince me that Murdoch would prefer Clinton (who is, after all, very liberal on domestic issues other than some smelly corporatism) over, say, McCain or Allen.

But would he support Clinton over Gore or Feingold or Edwards or even Kerry or any of the rest of the folks with a longshot at the nomination but a lock for the general? Absolutely.

Its pretty unlikely that Hillary will win the Democrat primary. The netroots don't like her and I'm sure that by 2007 they will be powerful enough to veto a candidate if they really want to. Hillary and Murdoch don't seem to understand this. They are operating in a pre-Dean world. Perhaps this is a sign that the old institutions in the traditional media are losing their power.

Ellsworth Toohey is alive and well.

Murdoch supports Hillary.

Republican base goes nuts.

Donations to RNC Soar.

Democrats decide to vote for Hitler's bones rather than another DINO.

Republican's back in office 2008 (actually elected this time).

Tell me why I would vote for Hillary if she ran as the Democratic candidate in 2008 with Murdoch's backing? My God, it's a nightmare.
Posted by: PTAte in MN

It is not a nightmare to millions of american voters.

Perhaps, you might not vote for Hiliary. The point is that she will do substantially better in the polls and in the ballot box, without FoxNews constantly carping on her and highlighting and magnifying each and every faux pas, to the point that her 'behavior' is an issue vs. the substance of the issue. A la ..the Dean SCREAM!!

Remember that overblown affair...Dean was simply rallying the troups but Fox, made him out to be a bipolar, deranged idiot.

Hiliary needs to neutralize press attacks...to get her message out there.

Lots of people besides you will vote for her especially a whole nation of women afraid that not only are they going to repeal abortion rights but the plan is to to take away birth control as well.

Fornicating indiscriminately is a sin..greater than murder in this country.

Admittedly, Blair's decision to move Labor to the right after taking over helped reassure Murdoch. But it's hard to imagine that Murdoch could see Hillary's current political persona as all that much more frightening than Labor in '97.

Blair moved his party, and by logical extension the center of gravity of British politics, decisively to the right. Not that long ago significant percentages of Labor party members were fighting for large-scale government ownership of industry and confiscatory income taxes on the wealthy. Once convinced of Blair ideological sensibilities, it made sense for Murdoch to support Blair, because doing so might help move British society as a whole to the right.

The same dynamic is not at work here. Hillary has some claim to being a centrist politician, but she's not a reform-minded modernizer like her husband or Tony Blair. I can't see any "big picture" strategic gains for Murdoch, which leads me to believe that if he is indeed shilling for Hillary, he must strongly suspect the Dems will win in 2008. Murdoch's a shrewd man. The smart money surely is increasingly on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Its pretty unlikely that Hillary will win the Democrat primary. The netroots don't like her and I'm sure that by 2007 they will be powerful enough to veto a candidate if they really want to. Hillary and Murdoch don't seem to understand this. They are operating in a pre-Dean world. Perhaps this is a sign that the old institutions in the traditional media are losing their power."
-swio

The netroots better improve their track record if they're gonna be vetoing anybody. you'll note the lack of the title "president" in front of gov. dean's name.

you guys give fox news too much credit for its influence.

Murdock did not support Blair from any winsome, lovelorn belief that he was the best man for the job. We still do not know what Murdock got from Blair, but we can be sure it was costly. Likewise, if Hillary neuters Fox, it will not be because Murdock prefers her politics but because she's bought him off with something Murdock wants or needs for his Empire.

Likewise, if Hillary neuters Fox, it will not be because Murdock prefers her politics but because she's bought him off with something Murdock wants or needs for his Empire.

Posted by: jim

What do you give to the man who has everything?

I think you all are reading this wrong. Murdoch may have read the writing on his wall, and is just another rat jumping ship on the Neocon vision. Murdoch will pick a winner, and the CW is Hillary is that winner.

From his perspective, what does he have left on the right? Frist? McCain? There is nothing there. He is about to lose his access to the levers of power. I'm sure that terrifies him.

Hillary will push minimum wage, universal health care, environmental regulation, and children's issues. That's not a bad package, and I trust her to do a lot better with global trade than most political leaders.

She's not my first choice, but I'd rather treat her as an ally than an enemy. She's no Lieberman.

Hillary is the new iron lady--of course Murdoch supports her.

With Hill as Prez it's gonna be Margaret Thatcher time all over again!

Get me my bumper sticker: Dump Hill & Bill, Murdoch and Thatcher--Get the Brits, the Aussies, the Corporate Fascists and that crazy Arkansas couple out of America. (I'm having my marketing people rework the wording on this...)

I think the fundamental observation to make here is that establishment power elite, be they Murdoch or Clinton will work together to avoid the revolutionary changes our country needs to make to achieve a socially just and peaceful society.

If Murdoch needs to change sides and go with a more liberal version of the status quo, that is what he will do.

I do not see it as good or bad news but more of the same. We need dramatic change and Clinton is not the one who will give us this.

The netroots better improve their track record if they're gonna be vetoing anybody. you'll note the lack of the title "president" in front of gov. dean's name.

You're right, its not "president" its "Chairman".

Tell me why I would vote for Hillary if she ran as the Democratic candidate in 2008 with Murdoch's backing?

Two words: Jeb Bush.

In answer to my question....

elrapierwit:"Lots of people besides you will vote for her especially a whole nation of women afraid that not only are they going to repeal abortion rights but the plan is to to take away birth control as well."

ogmb: "Two words: Jeb Bush"

No one has said, Condoleeza Rice, yet, but she would be another good reason to vote for Hillary.

In other words, we'll vote for Hillary Clinton because we are so afraid of the Republicans that we prefer a brand name?

I'm afraid of the Republicans, but the nightmare part is the idea that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate that Democratic money can buy. A Clinton nomination would be proof positive that the Democratic party is everything the conservatives accuse it of being--tired, inbred, more interested in polls than in principles, determined to ensure abortion rights above all else. Apart from the fact that her husband preceded her as POTUS, how is Hillary qualified? Eight years as a senator preparing to run? Has she any executive experience at all? Does anyone else remember the 1994 health care reform debacle? The health care plan that set health care reform back a decade?

I'll second Patrick Briggs's observation: "I do not see it as good or bad news but more of the same. We need dramatic change and Clinton is not the one who will give us this."

Just another reason to oppose Clinton's nomination with every breath in our bodies.

still working:

just what would the "netroots" do to veto Hillary? I don't see how they would exercise that power over the primaries, which is the only thing that matters with respect to the nomination. Netroot opposition might even help make her look more moderate.

Murdoch probably is doing this for the publicity and to help defend against attacks on FOX. It is a no lose proposition for him. She likely loses in the general election and if she wins Murdoch gains.

I assume Kevin is not serious in suggesting O'Reily would support Hillary, regardless of what Murdoch does.

brian: I assume Kevin is not serious in suggesting O'Reily would support Hillary, regardless of what Murdoch does.

They're called whores because they do it for money (no offense to honest hard working prostitutes).

What Mysticdog said. Besides, Murdoch is not a stupid man, he just may have noticed that the economy and business do better under Democratic administrations than they do under Republican ones. Murdoch's empire isn't built on the backs of minimum wage workers like the Walton family's and rising wages are good for his business. Murdoch spends a lot of money on health care for his employees. Murdoch saw fiscal responsibility for eight years with the last Democratic president and fiscal irresponsibility of breathtaking proportion with the current Republican. It doesn't take a genius to think that the solution to the problem is a Democrat and his money is on the favorite right now.

My money is on the winner of the 2000 election, but then again I'm not as successful a gambler as Murdoch.

I've been angry at Hilary Clinton in the past, but I don't really know how liberal she is. Neither does anyone here. The netroots is pissed at her because she doesn't vocally support us, but her actions have her in a very good position to win. I applaud Feingold for supporting us and I'll vote for him in my primary, but it's not neccesarily a good idea to hate Hilary just because she doesn't suck up to us.

Rupert Murdoch's control is overrated: I don't think you can blunt Fox news by standing up to him. It's not that monolithic. However, she might be able to avoid having it specifically turn on her, or lead a charge against her, if she continues to look good everywhere else.

That would be worth a lot. RM himself isn't important, but the tone of an entire cable network isn't entirely to be discarded.

But it wasn't just Fox News that backstabbed Dean, it was everyone.

I haven't seen Hilary specifically betray or specifically impress me. She's being cautious and building a winning hand. I won't judge her electoral platform before I see it.

I have heard Hillary will flop over to the "Centrist" meme. And that of course is FAUX Like.
Of Course FUX news only has an 11% trust rating in America. If I were Hillary I would steer clear of FUX Nutwork, They are KNOWN misleaders, they alter video tapes,words, stories, to fit the "Balanced" idea they wish to create. Of course it can't be balanced when its cherry picked data.

In CASE the media didn't mention it Murtha VOTED for the IRAN war plan. Cloaked under the Guise of "Democracy for Iran" or some such Crap.

Murdoch is a LIBERAL capitalist, just one of the UK monarch variety.
In fact its also called Monarch Media, and Regent entertainment.

Murdoch is as liberal as the The Liberal Eastern establishment of Bush, Kennedy and Kerry.

BTW Patrick Kennedy, the Drunk, worked with Newt on many plans. Ted Kennedy,.ol self protectionist Ted, also Co- Authored the nefarious Bush NCLB program..

Yeh the Repubs are liberals as well, so are the noe-cons.

my view

More proof that Hillary really is a phony, sucking up to this Hearst wannabe.

But even neutralizing the "Fox News effect" would be a pretty valuable coup for Hillary. Maybe she's up to something really smart here.

Look, I don't care what's good for Hillary. I care about what's good for the country.

What the country needs is a dramatic reversal of course. There are a few candidates the Dems could run that would give the country a real choice for change. (Feingold, Gore, even Kerry again, and a number of others.) You can argue whether they are electable, but events are leading to '08 being a year of change, and that helps the Dems, whoever runs. Murdoch sees that, and he's hedging his bets. Call her "centrist" or "Republican lite" but either way Hillary is a better outcome for Murdoch and Fox then most other Dems. Hillary's real problem might be the primaries. She's way behind the curve with Americans on the war, and even further behind with Dem voters. How she survives the first few states I really don't see. A truce with Fox doesn't help her any. Everything she's done so far shows me she thinks she's running in 1992, and that she just doesn't get it. Anyway, if she makes it through to the nomination, that's a wet dream come true for Murdoch and the wingers. She is exactly who they want to see the Dems pick. She's an easy target, she's good for their business, and if god forbid, she wins, no sweat -- she's already in the bag.

ogmb: "Two words: Jeb Bush"
No one has said, Condoleeza Rice, yet, but she would be another good reason to vote for Hillary.
In other words, we'll vote for Hillary Clinton because we are so afraid of the Republicans that we prefer a brand name?
I'm afraid of the Republicans, but the nightmare part is the idea that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate that Democratic money can buy. A Clinton nomination would be proof positive that the Democratic party is everything the conservatives accuse it of being--tired, inbred, more interested in polls than in principles, determined to ensure abortion rights above all else. Apart from the fact that her husband preceded her as POTUS, how is Hillary qualified? Eight years as a senator preparing to run? Has she any executive experience at all? Does anyone else remember the 1994 health care reform debacle? The health care plan that set health care reform back a decade?
I'll second Patrick Briggs's observation: "I do not see it as good or bad news but more of the same. We need dramatic change and Clinton is not the one who will give us this."
Posted by: PTate in MN

You know, PT...those two words by OGMB are certainly chilling to me...and far more frightening than any changes Hiliary would institute. I simply would not tolerate another Bush..it is too awful to even consider, how he will continue the cover-up and take us further along the path of tyranny.

I suppose part of why I find Hiliary a very good candidate, is because I beleive she and Bill are philosophical and idealogue twins, which is why their marriage survives and why they more than likely hooked up to hegin with..they have common global and domestic views. People emphasize how she is a powermonger, in terms of her spousal committment, but I think that is a superficial oversight. Their passions and committments are far deeper than power glory, even though I would agree they both enjoy power. I truly, have not seen where the Clinton administration abused power to the extent, that it impacted the nation negatively in terms of economics, health, education and foreign policy. They may not have had the political capital to push through health-care but it did not set us back. It started the dialogue and policy changes moving in the right direction. Nor did their policies impact me negatively as a tax-paying citizen...so when it comes to the power aspect, I have no beef with the Clintons.

With regard to your 'no qualifications' on Hiliary's part...I do not see that, either. She is 35 and an American citizen...those are the only qualifications for President required. What do McCain, Feingold and Dubya bring to the table in terms of qualifications? I beleive Hiliary has superb executive ability and the intelligence to delegate well and process data that is essential to doing the job. Something which this present administration lacks totally, and whose incompetence would be hard to top. I also think that Hiliary would pick a good cabinet with members whose expertise and performance she could rely on being the primary criteria vs. loyalty trumphing performance in this administration. She would not be afraid of thinkers and ideas and innovation.

I also do not see Hiliary's main thrust as to ensure abortion rights above all else. Hiliary is a strong woman of faith, and she has expressed it in many ways, prior to being First Lady in several speeches as well as during her tenure as First Lady and as a Senator. She has never been pro-abortion, she is however, pro-choice. Does she advocate abortion, no? She expresses her view as, abortions should be few, but available. That is far from an extremist view.

Furthermore, I see her as an exceptional mother, in terms of how she has prepared Chelsea for life. We do not hear stories in the press about Chelsea, even as a teenager in HS or a college student, unlike those Bush twins or even the Kennedy clan. That speaks volumes about the values she instilled in her daughter despite the challenges and public pressure they faced as a family. Chelsea stands as a living testament to Hiliary's selfless acts as a mother to nurture a human being and do the hard work it takes to create an emotionally stable and productive citizen.

While people talk about her committment to her marriage, as if it is a shortcoming, I see it far differently...what occured was publically humiliating but strength of character and courage of conviction means you do not run when the going gets tough, nor do you judge a person's character by the sum of their flaws. She upheld her vows and that should be applauded not derided. You may not be able to change your spouse's character but you can accept it and work to make your marriage stronger by your committment.

Which is why her daughter's character is more of a reflection of the person she is, than the situation with Bill. Hiliary instilled her values in her child and I think based on what we know about Chelsea that she did an outstanding job and should be judged for that when it comes to assessing what her true character is.

So you can judge her lack of qualifications, if you like on 'executive experience' but I beleive my reference point on the way her child conducts herself, is a far better perspective, of just who and what Hiliary stands for, as well as having managed the most challenging executive responsibilites any human could ever undertake.

There are signs the dirty digger is losing his touch. His son left the NYC Post after doofus Dad phoned in the Gephardt tip that didn't pan out and his China play just makes him look like Elliot Carver of ' Tomorrow's news today'.
He is smart enough to see the net truck bearing down on his accidental nepotistic empire but he is now too old and slow to get out of the way and pull that political bag lady thats with him out either.

* SPLAT!*

More road kill on the information superhighway. A fox in every pot.

elrapierwit:"I beleive Hiliary has superb executive ability and the intelligence to delegate well and process data that is essential to doing the job....I beleive my reference point on the way her child conducts herself, is a far better perspective, of just who and what Hiliary stands for, as well as having managed the most challenging executive responsibilites any human could ever undertake."

I guess you haven't heard the CW that senators don't win presidential elections. Beware the reasoning error known as confirmation bias!

Certainly if it comes down to it, if Hilary is the Democratic nominee, I would end up casting my vote for her just as I voted for John Kerry in the last election though I loved Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. I would be sick about it, however. I wouldn't feel happy about it at all. I'd be furious. I'd be looking at 3rd party candidates, and I'd be ready to bolt. My preference right now is Al Gore, because the environmental issues/resource depletion is the ONLY problem, everything else is symptom.

Among the reasons to vote for Hilary is that she is smart. According to psychologists who study work, mental ability accounts for ~25% of the variance in performance in complex jobs, more than any other characteristic. If you know nothing else about a job candidate but his or her IQ, then vote the higher IQ.

The second characteristic that predicts job performance is the personality characteristic of conscientiousness--being orderly, setting goals, following rules, staying away from alcohol/drugs, showing self-restraint, reliable, dependable. Again, Hilary demonstrates that she is conscientious--certainly more so than the current bozo POTUS. But Hilary vs Condie??? At least on these two dimensions, probably no diff.

But having successfully raised a child? If raising a child is the best executive experience that Hilary has to offer, she is hardly uniquely qualified for the position.

The fact that we'd be getting her husband in the bargain?? How pathetic is THAT? I can't believe feminist hopes--or the Democratic party--has come to this.

JBean:"My money is on the winner of the 2000 election"

Mine too. And my heart is starting to get engaged. I think the folks who voted for Gore in 2000 would vote again and a bunch of people who were decieved by Bush last time will switch.

The question is whether the media are total assholes again with the whole "stiff Al" meme: God forbid our POTUS should be a serious man. If Democrats benefit from a miracle and regain control of the House & Senate, an important piece of business between 2006-2008 would be campaign financing, fair, transparent elections, non-partisan districts and fairness in broadcasting. This, of course, is true regardless of who the candidate is in 2008.

Among the reasons to vote for Hilary is that she is smart.

She may be smarter than the average American, but I don't see much reason to believe that that is going to be a comparative advantage over the field she is running against. If she's any smarter than average among nationally known politicians, I see little evidence of any application of this intelligence.

"You're right, its not "president" its "Chairman".
Posted by: still working it out"

nice consolation prize for a loser.

cmdicely: "If she's any smarter than average among nationally known politicians, I see little evidence of any application of this intelligence."

Yeah, true. In this case, it may not matter. I mention it because I consider one of my quests in life to try to help people understand what "job qualifications" mean. I could get paid for this expert knowledge, but I just give it away.

But--in my own personal example of fighting the last war--I regret that Americans in 2000 were so ignorant of job qualifications that they thought that "the guy you'd most like to have a beer with" was an important job credential for POTUS.

I guess you haven't heard the CW that senators don't win presidential elections. Beware the reasoning error known as confirmation bias!
.... My preference right now is Al Gore, because the environmental issues/resource depletion is the ONLY problem, everything else is symptom.
Among the reasons to vote for Hilary is that she is smart..... If you know nothing else about a job candidate but his or her IQ, then vote the higher IQ. The second characteristic that predicts job performance is the personality characteristic of conscientiousness--being orderly, setting goals, following rules, staying away from alcohol/drugs, showing self-restraint, reliable, dependable. Again, Hilary demonstrates that she is conscientious--certainly more so than the current bozo POTUS. But Hilary vs Condie??? At least on these two dimensions, probably no diff.But having successfully raised a child? If raising a child is the best executive experience that Hilary has to offer, she is hardly uniquely qualified for the position.
The fact that we'd be getting her husband in the bargain?? How pathetic is THAT? I can't believe feminist hopes--or the Democratic party--has come to this.

Posted by: PTAte in MN on May 10

Well PT...I can agree on some basic points with you. The CW on Senators, has some validity, but I think with enough money, candidates can overcome it, especially if they have not spent 10+ years in the Senate. Kerry, would have probably survived had he came out swingin against the swift boat attacks, instead of lettin that crap ride. That is the one of the things I remember about Hiliary when Bill ran, Bill did not want to address his 'womanizing' issue, it was Hiliary who told him he could not let that ride, and it was Hiliary that went out and renoumced it (I'm no Tammy Wynette). She knows how to get in the trenches and understands the only way to fight a bully is just like Holyfield did Tyson, keep them backing up to your punch. Whatever, you do, don't play rope-a-dope. That is the kiss of death.

I think Hiliary's votes in the senate on war and the budget and national security will stand her in good stead in the general election, because it shows that she supported the President when our national security was at stake, but moreover she represented the interest of her constiuencies.

As far as confirmation bias goes, I do try to beware. Yet, I have to hope that we can get out of this financial quagmire and tyrannical rule that is eroding our countries foundation. I call it 'incestous amplification" now days, since that is the way I heard this administrations failures described. That is a condition where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing, st beliefs and creating a stituation ripe for 'miscalculation'. But then, I do not think the media has been especially kind to Senator Clinton, so I think I have a minority few among many democrats even. Which is why she would benefit from Murdoch's support.

I like Gore also, I like him for his stance on most significant issues of our time, environment, internet and democracy, those great speeches he gave on democracy and the rule of law, he has lots of IQ as well. Additionally, his children are also responsible citizens as are the Kerry girls. Tipper and Gore have sound values, the courage of their convictions and the strength of character to lead as a family and in the WH. Is a Gore/Obama ticket too far fetched?? I also like Edwards but do not beleive he can carry the ticket nationally. Whereas, I think southerners, will rally around Gore vs. Edwards. Yes, I know Gore did not carry his home state, but with the Dubai Port deal and Ford having prepped the state with his campaign, Gore might carry FL and TN this time and win.

Condi, has a great resume, but I feel she is too autocratic and she did too much dirt under Bush as head of the NSA...she supposedly was the competent one covering the incompetent one, yet she was the one with the 'mushroom cloud' and 'aluminum tube' propaganda on all the sunday talk shows...and she is in bed with big oil and the neocons up to her neck. Plus, even though this is a terribly chavinistic thing to say, I do not trust women without spouses or children. Marriage and children are demanding and they teach people how to be selfless and put the interest of others first. Condi, was an only child, her parents are dead and she has no spouse, so to me..she is lacking in 'life experience' and would make a poor leader and be ineffectual at compromise. She only knows how to tow the line and demand others to yield to her wants. I feel she would not hesitate to escalate a nuclear crisis and launch a nuclear missile, as she lacks brinkmanship, from what I can tell. Why haven't we seen any stories on her being an awsome Secretary of State or negotiating anything of importance? She riles China and Korea as well as the Arab heads of states. If likeability is a factor, Hiliary wins hands down. I still remember her supercilious attitude with Barbara Boxer, at her confirmation hearing, when Boxer used her own words to IMPUGN her, yet Condi tried to feign moral high ground. Ha! I don't THINK so. I'll take 5 colin powells over Condi, anyday...at least he was duped...condi is STILL carrying their water...and had she BACKED Colin in those meetings the country might have had a fighting chance. Instead, she sided with Cheney, Rummy and Wolfwitz. I can not think of any one thing that is a mark of EXCELLENCE in terms of her personal life or career...great educational credentials, but that is it, nothing much there of professional distinction to speak of.

I think that it is difficult for childless people to think of executive skills in terms of parenting, but it truly is. You have to multi-task, and shape and mold the mental state of the person whose behavior you wish to influence. You cannot parent by fiat or as a tyrant...simply does not work. Yet, you must know when to give the person enough rope to distinguish themselves while building the character (outcome) you want in the final analysis. That requires consideration, analytic reasoning, delegation and processing lots of data to stay abreast of all current issues which will be multifaceted and everchanging. Each day presents a new set of problems and progress brings new and additional challenges. It requires consistency and adhering to principles, while being receptive to new ideas. Parenting is not for wimps. It is also why many people fail at it. And that is just the the child rearing facet, it does not include the executive skills essential to running the home. So, yes parenting and marriage are a BIG deal and a pretty reliable measure of people's character or lack of.

I don't recall saying we would be getting her husband as part of the deal. However, I did say that I beleive they have very similiar global, domestic and philosophical views, which would drive policy changes. Since I was not unhappy with Clinton's policies I am not all that apprehensive about Hiliary being the Chief Executive. I think that her having been a First Lady and Senator, will give her a leg up in terms of knowing international leaders as well.

So, no my political hopes do not rest on Bill being part of the deal, but on the fact that I think Hiliary will be a better chief exectutive than Bill was due to her greater courage of conviction and stronger character when it comes to brinkmanship, she reads the cards better than Bill. The only thing Bill has over Hiliary is charisma...but Hiliary is the substance in the relationship...afterall they didn't call him 'slickwilly' for nothin. Having been his spouse, I do not think, there are that many political moves Hiliary does have a game plan for.

GO HILIARY!

Labour is a name. It has a "u" in it. I appreciate that it's an easy mistake to make, but still.