Hillary on the Sidelines

Accurate yet not surprising:

There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton’s star has significantly waned since January. Hugely overshadowed by a White House that dominates US foreign policy, the former first lady rarely makes headlines on policy questions. She has gone from fiery senator and presidential contender to increasingly marginalized run of the mill bureaucrat.

Of course Hillary has been marginalised - why else would Obama have made her Secretary of State? He is an interventionist, energetic young President. He leads policy in his administration - domestic and foreign. The various secretaries and other Cabinet members are there because the Constitution demands it; not as policy leaders. 

Obama knew that Hillary's vanity meant she wouldn't be able to resist the position of Secretary of State, but also knew that by tying her so closely to his administration she would have to be loyal to him, and couldn't set herself up as a potential rival for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Of course he didn't offer it to Clinton because he likes or respects her - the Clinton v. Obama primary battle was arguably even more bitter than the General Election campaign against McCain. No, Obama made her Secretary of State because, for all his flaws, he is a savvy political operator. He's using the age-old advice of "keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer."

In fact, he did something similar to Smilin' Joe Biden when he offered him the Vice-Presidency. Two of the leading lights of the Democratic party are now part of the Obama administration - they cannot oppose him or run against him without destroying their own careers by appearing disloyal. 

As I've noted on several occasions, the Republican Party doesn't seem able to offer a credible alternative to Obama. And Obama has managed to neutralise many of the potential Democratic alternatives who haven't managed to neutralise themselves. At this rate, he is going to coast to renomination and re-election in 2012. 

So of course Hillary Clinton has been marginalised. She became Secretary of State precisely so she could become a footnote in the history of the Obama Administration. It is what he had planned for her from the moment she accepted the job. 

The Downfall of Downfall

We've all been there: you first see something funny, or hear a great joke, and it is hilarious. Real laugh out loud funny. Then you see it again, or an adaptation of it, and it is less funny. Or someone tells you a variation of the joke, and it gets less funny each time. And it goes on like that; a slow process of attrition, until you just think that the joke is shit and you are fucking sick of hearing it. 

I feel that way about those Downfall videos now.  The first time I saw one - about Hillary Clinton's failing bid for the Democratic nomination - it was laugh out loud funny. Now there are so many of them - dealing with everything from the BNP winning EU seats through to Derek Draper being a bit of a cunt - that it becomes more comment worthy if a political failure doesn't have the clip from Downfall adapted to suit the particular circumstances.

So enough already, people. Give the Downfall spoofs a rest. And if you leave it for long enough, you never know - it might get funny again. 

Secretary of State Clinton

Barack Obama is going through the (no doubt immensely tedious) job of recruiting for his White House team. Amongst the ranks of Democratic party members plucked from relative obscurity to re-enact The West Wing from next January, one name stands out. Oh yes. Hillary Clinton may well end up US Secretary of State.

Not entirely sure why Hillary has been selected. Yes, she has travelled the world - but largely as First Lady. Her hands on, frontline political experience has been as a Senator, and whilst you can argue that New York is a melting pot, it is a big leap to suggest that her experience as a Senator allows her to become Secretary of State at probably the most crucial time since the Vietnam War.

In fact, you could almost claim that Hillary has got her role simply to unite the Democrats. But does Obama really need to unite the Democrats? I'd argue they are more united than they have been for decades, and Obama himself has won the first majority in the popular vote for the Democrats since 1976. Yes, Hillary Clinton remains a rival, and yes, I understand the logic of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. But seriously, Clinton won't be a threat to Obama for a while.

But if Obama really does need to rebuild bridges in the Democrats then why not choose someone with more direct foreign policy experience? Someone who has traversed the globe as a front line, international statesman? Someone who could also help to unite the Democrats?

Why not make Bill Clinton the Secretary of State?

Quote of the Day - Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton on Barack Obama:

"Everything I learned in my eight years as president and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job," the former president said.

Love it. “The right man for the job.” Not the right person, or the best person, but the right man. Even as the Democrats shout to the rafters about their newfound party loyalty, you can still see it, And still feel it - the slight, bitter rancour that the Clinton faction still feel about their defeat. Obama is the right man for the job; they still feel that the best person didn’t win.

Election 2008: The Clinton Millstone

On some levels I feel sorry for Barack Obama. Yes, he’s got what he seems to lust after – the chance to run for President. He actually stands – despite a massive lack of experience – the chance to get elected President. He’s not done too badly for himself.

Yet he has a massive headache. In fact, he has an eyeball popping migraine of a problem. It is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Now, Obama and his campaign might feel she is no longer a problem – after all, he seems to have finally consigned her campaign to the dustbin of history. Yet she still looms over him, like a shrill, demented sword of Damocles. Because, having failed to win the nomination, she now has set her razor sharp, Terminator-esque eyes on the vice-presidential nomination.

The simplest thing to do would be to offer Clinton the vice-presidency. He would have her onside, and he would have the considerable support she mustered in the primaries behind him as well. Yet how long would it be until she started to think that she was the one running for President rather than Obama? If their ticket won the White House, how long would it take her to assume she was President? You’d have to be delusional and arrogant to make that that sort of assumption – but after her endless campaign for President, you could argue that Clinton is both.

However, the latest intelligence seems to suggest that Obama is shunning Clinton. Fair enough, but this strategy has risk attached to it as well. And that risk can be summed up by the question “just how insane is Hillary Clinton?” If she is snubbed again, what will she do? I doubt, given her campaign for the Presidency increasingly showed the *tenacity* of a rabid poodle savaging a child’s face, that she will simply shrug and walk away. So how destructive will she be? Will she just refuse to campaign for her unlikely victor? Will she start a whispering campaign against him? Will she completely lose the plot, and run as an Independent - thus throwing the chances of the Democrats winning the White House back straight down the crapper?

Make no mistake; Hillary Clinton is a millstone around the neck of Obama. And it is a millstone that could drown the Obama campaign, just as surely as it drowned the once invincible Hillary ’08 campaign.

Clinton '08 - No More

And finally... she bows out.

There will be some who will be advise Obama to make Hillary Clinton his Vice-Presidential candidate for the election in November. And there is a case for that - she clearly has some support in the Democrats - how else would she manage to drag out her campaign for so long?

And yet... would you want Hillary as your Vice-President? Would you want her in your White House, constantly trying to become involved in every aspect of your administration? Would you want her running her own presidential campaign, whilst you run for President? Would you want her running for President, whilst you run the country? And would you want her secretly praying you get gunned down, so she can take your Presidency from you?

Maybe I'm being harsh about Hillary Clinton, but her campaign has highlighted again and again her naked lust for power. She wants to be President more than anything else, and will not let anyone or anything - even reality - stand in her way. If I was Obama, I'd be very wary before I made the call to Hillary, asking her to be my Vice-President.

Election 08 - Obama-Clinton?

The new strategy of the Hillary Clinton campaign - position her to be Obama's Vice-President.

Seriously, I'm impressed with this idea. Not because I think it is a good one, but rather because it shows Hillary's courage. It takes a lot of fucking courage to spend the best part of a year telling a guy he's rubbish and not up to the job of fighting an election in November (at the same time as losing a series of elections to him) only to turn around and beg him for a job as soon as he has convincingly defeated you. It moves beyond "ambitious" part of the electioneering spectrum and moves more towards the "naked, unthinking lust for power" part.

Still, Obama could do a lot worse than getting her on the ticket with him. After all, if she is running for office with him, even she will have to concede that the nomination race is over and she can finally turn her relentlessly, energetic hectoring on the Republicans. Surely not even Clinton would have the naked audacity to continue to run for the Democratic nomination for President even after she has been nominated for Vice-President?

Actually, I'll stop right there. Don't want to give Hillary any ideas...

Ted Kennedy And US Nepotism

So, Ted Kennedy has a brain tumour. Bad news for him, bad news for his family. For what it is worth, I hope he gets better.

But I really can’t understand all the attention that this news has got. Seriously, when I was (half) watching Channel Four news last week there were crowds outside the hospital, cheering as he walked out. I know he is fat, old and ill, but walking can’t be much of a problem for him, surely?

Which got me wondering exactly why so many people care about Ted Kennedy. Because on paper, he isn’t the most likeable or capable of politicians. In fact, he’s pretty crap. I mean, his career has hardly been scintillating. His main claim to fame is that he has been in power for a long time. Well, whoopee-do – but by that logic we should also be celebrating Fidel Castro, because he spent ages in power. Aside from that, his career is mainly misjudgement and scandal. Take his run for President in 1980 – a glaring example of disloyalty to (the admittedly dreadful) man who was then President of his party, he managed to assist Reagan into the White House and helped to bring in 12 years of Republican rule. And no criticism of Kennedy would be complete without the obligatory mention of Chappaquiddick. Any other Senator with this record would be rapidly consigned to life outside of the public domain. Ted Kennedy is treated as a hero, despite his many flaws.

And it shouldn’t be a revelation to anyone that the reason why those glaring flaws are overlooked is because of his family name. Lacking the charisma of one brother and the political acumen of another, he is pretty much the shallow end of the Kennedy clan gene pool. He only found the limelight because of the tragedies that befell his older siblings. People care about Ted Kennedy because of his surname and because of his brothers. It is not a personal thing, it is simply the natural extension of the unpleasant nepotism that tars so much of modern American Politics.

Look at the current election. Obama’s fight against Clinton has at least stopped (unless something goes badly wrong) the US from having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House. So what do people do? Start talking about the ridiculously named Chelsea Clinton making a run for the White House in eight years. The Bush dynasty seems to have been (temporarily) stopped from achieving further power – but as soon as Dubya is out of the White House, memories of his misrule will fade and the talk of Jeb – or some other moron with Bush for a surname – in the White House will start. This website, presumably intended as satire, has more than a ring of truth to it.

Nepotism is a signpost of the death of democracy – that the talent pool of politicians has become so woefully shallow that people with a surname that harks back to better times is the way to go. It may be difficult for people in the UK to understand just how bad this is for democracy. But look at it this way: imagine if people were seriously talking about Euan Blair as a future Prime Minister. How pissed off would everyone be, given it took us ten years to be rid of his twat of a father? Even worse, imagine if the off spring of Gordon Brown were credible future leaders in this country. The thought sends shivers down my spine.

So America should stop thinking in terms of Kennedys, or Bushes, or Clintons. They should look for people whose main claim to power is more than simply being the spawn of or spouse to someone who was once in power. Kennedy’s illness should be the starting point of this – he should be allowed to heal in private, away from the glaring gaze of the media that focuses on him purely because of his name.

Election 2008: I win the popular vote, not Clinton!

Clinton’s still not winning, but that won’t stop her from continuing to fight. And why would it? After all she is winning the popular vote.

Sort of.

If you count the votes cast on the contests that don’t count. And those that Obama did not try to win. So basically, she’s winning if you ignore the rules.

Which I think is a fantastic way to win. And I’m going to use it myself. Yep, I am going to extend Clinton’s logic to prove that I have won the Democratic nomination for President myself. See, I going to count a vote that hasn’t been counted (mine) and I’m going to further bend the rules by ignoring all the other votes that have been cast. Therefore, I’m the winner. And I won by a freaking landslide! Seriously, 100% of the vote. I rock! And come November, I’ll kick McCain’s ancient butt like it has never been kicked before!

But seriously, the Clinton campaign is now so shafted that she has become the child screaming at the other kids who are still playing a game that she has been excluded from. How long until she actually says "it isn’t fair! I still want to play! Let me play! LET ME!"

Message to Clinton and her supporters. Give it up. It has got pathetic.

The Clinton Campaign Rolls On. And On. And On...

As I predicted yesterday, Hillary Clinton has taken her (admittedly impressive) victory in West Virginia as a clarion call to drag her failing campaign for the Presidency onwards. It is a curious campaign now, increasingly taking on a scorched earth feel to it. Basically, if Hillary can’t take the White House, then no Democrat will. Hell, I wouldn’t put running as an Independent past her. She’ll do anything – even handing victory to John McCain – to shaft Obama now.

Still, being a *credible* politician, Clinton has reasons why she should be the nominee, even though it is next to impossible for her to win. Apparently it is because any Democrat needs to take West Virginia to win the White House:

Reiterating a point she has made frequently while campaigning in West Virginia, Clinton pointed out Tuesday that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.

A few points spring to mind immediately. Clearly Democrats have won the White House without winning West Virginia, just prior to 1916. And Kerry would have won the White House in 2004 without West Virginia, had he managed to take Ohio.

Also, come the General Election campaign, Obama won’t be running against Clinton. In fact, a lot of those voters who went to Clinton yesterday will probably take their votes to Obama. The fact that Clinton has won a lot of those states in the primary contest is a magnificent irrelevance, as come the General Election the Democratic Nominee (or Obama as he will be called after the Democrat’s National Nominating Convention) will be up against a very different opponent in a very different contest.

Finally, in order for any Democrat to win the White House, they have to win the nomination for the party long before they worry about winning West Virginia. And that’s the problem that Clinton has. Obama is winning the nomination, and she isn’t.

Increasingly, the complaints and bellyaching of the Clinton campaign look a lot less like waving, and a lot more like drowning. And if Obama wants to his party a real favour, he should find a way to tie a heavy rock to the legs of the Clinton campaign, so he can witness it disappearing beneath the waves once and for all.

Clinton and Brown: Two peas, same pod

Over in the US of A Hillary is going to win by a landslide but still lose the overall contest. For a lot of people, that would be the moment to pack up your bags and go do something else. For Hillary, it will be a sure sign that the swing is finally going in her direction, that the people are speaking and for the first time she can listen. Mainly because they are speaking in favour of her. I expect her to ramble on to the convention, still pretending she has a chance, still grinning the maniac grin that has so chilled the souls of Democratic voters across the US. Yes, she'll continue to fight until everyone in the Democratic party hates her. Including, hopefully, herself.

You could accuse the Hillary campaign of adopting a bunker mentality - certainly there seems to be an increasing void between reality and the Clinton 08 movement. But for me, the more interesting observation is just how similar Hillary is to our own odious Prime Minister.

Sure, there are some glaring differences. For all her flaws, Hillary has at least show a willingness to put herself at the mercies of the voters - something which sadly seems to terrify our incumbent Prime Minister. But if you paint the character portraits of Hillary and Gordon in broad brush strokes, some key similarities do emerge.

Both sat in the shadows of more charismatic leaders for many years. Both are policy wonks, more at home talking about the minutae of (generally very shitty) policies than they are in connecting with other people. Both have managed to promote themselves to positions far beyond the extent of their own limited abilities. And you'd probably cross the street rather than have a conversation with either one of them.

But for me their biggest similarity is also their greatest flaw. They both believe that they are owed their political positions. They have listened to their own hype, to their own yes men and women, and now cannot understand how anyone could even doubt their rights to the highest political offices in their respective countries. And they are mystified as to why people prefer the likes of Obama and Cameron - those newbie, political lightweights.

And this indignant failure to understand why people prefer Cameron and Obama is proving to be the undoing of both of them. Cameron and Obama do lack gravitas - they are have all the political weight of a size zero supermodel on a diet and a bulimic binge. But - despite this - those lightweights manage to capture the public imagination. Partly by being young, partly by being photogenic, and partly by being inoffensive. Clinton and Brown are old. They look bitter, they are mired in the bogs of their respective political histories. It will be a devastating realisation for both of them; that their time has been and gone. Brown should have run for Labour leader in 1994 - even he could have beaten Major in 1997. And Clinton should have taken on Bush in 2004. By waiting for too long they showed themselves to be calculating, inhuman political machines. And thus left themselves wide open to being eclipsed by less experienced by brighter, sunnier and more human competitors.

Give it up, people. Retire into the shadows with whatever dignity you have left. Because if you stay in the sun too long, you will melt - with your legacies - away into nothing.

Election 2008: Intelligence is a plus, not a must

A victory each for Clinton and Obama in the Democratic primaries. So the race drags on. Increasingly the reporters must be enjoying what is effectively an extended holiday for them. I mean, as long as you put “Obama in the lead”, “No knockout blow”, “Narrow victory for Clinton” and “still in the race” into your article then you can pretty much send in the same piece, over and over again. Even the participants seem increasingly bored by the contest. The fight seems to have gone from them.

So we have to take comfort in those smaller stories. Those little encounters. Particularly the ones which embarrass those candidates wishing to fight an election campaign against a daft old man in the winter. Take this little moment for Obama, campaigning at a café:

“At the coffee shop, Obama got a bit of a surprise at one table. While talking to a trio of men eating breakfast, one handed him the bill. "This will seal the thing,'' he said. Obama accepted it, and later took it to the cashier and paid it. The only problem for Obama — he picked up the tab for Steve Czajkowski, a pastor at the local Community Church of Greenwood, and a Canadian citizen who can't vote.”

Magic stuff. Obama ends up buying coffee someone who can’t even vote for him. I suppose you could argue that he had no choice but to buy the coffee – after all, he would have looked tight had he asked for proof of their right to vote before putting his hand in his pocket. Still, fair play to the guys who effectively fleeced him. Although they may regret it if he becomes the most powerful man in the world.

Onto Hillary, who has been casually placing her foot in her mouth:

“Clinton fared no better at a morning event at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway with race car driver Sarah Fisher, one of the top females in the sport. Clinton tried out an analogy, comparing the economy to a race car, saying "if you want to go forward, put it on D - if you want to go backwards, put it in R.'' It was left to Fisher to tell the New York senator that Indy race cars do not have a reverse.”

In fairness, I didn’t know that those sort of cars don’t have a reverse gear either. But then again, I’m not heading up a multi-million dollar campaign that could afford people to do this, very basic, research for me. And when you think about it, it is fricking obvious that these sort cars wouldn’t have a reverse gear. You’d be a piss poor racer if you were driving backwards…

But until the Democrats actually put themselves into gear and work out who they want to contest McCain in the autumn, this sort of anecdotes are the best this campaign can offer. And for one of the two Democratic candidates, these stories will be all they have very soon. Because the time is drawing near when the race will be over for definite, and one of them will have to retire into relative obscurity. Or the US Senate, as it is sometimes called.

The 3am Call

In my not at all humble opinion, it will become one of those great campaign ads. Hillary Clinton’s “The 3am Call" and her shrill insistence that she – and only she – would be able to take that crisis call when it comes through to the US president in the dead of night. Of course, the ad might not work, but at least it is memorable.

But a few points spring to mind about this attack ad – and it is basically an attack ad because it has been used to attack Obama’s perceived lack of experience. But seriously, what experience does Hillary Clinton have of taking that middle-of-the-night phone call that does – sometimes – come through to world leaders? The woman’s been a Senator – OK, for longer that Obama, but still won’t have that executive experience. It will be her husband who has that experience. Hell, Hillary’s experience of the 3am call is probably rolling over in bed and asking her husband to take his call somewhere else if he is going to talk so darned loud.

And why is this 3am phone call so important? What call really needs to be taken at 3am? I’d say only those that directly jeopardise or take the lives of US citizens. There may be all sorts of crises going on throughout the globe, but a decent time manager should let those wait for the morning. Unless America or American citizens are under attack, then the President should want to be informed when they are awake, in the morning, munching on their muesli and actually in the right mindset to make these crucial decisions. Because at 3am, no-one is at their best. There might be just occasions when the President actually needs to take that call at 3am, but those are few and far between.

And even if that call does come through, even if someone is going to nuke the US, why is experience so important at that point? Because hopefully the President – be it Obama, Clinton or McCain – is going to consult with others before they take action. Before you take action that may jeopardise the lives of others, you should really check with others who are specialists in their fields and can offer sage advice.

There’s something in the mindset of a candidate who is focussed on this sort of 3am crisis call. They are the type of people who relish the adrenaline rush of a catastrophe, those who get a hard-on* for making any drama into a crisis. They probably get a bit breathless when they hear a siren. Being part of a motorcade, with all those police officers and all those flashing lights, is the biggest thrill in the world. They wait for that terrorist atrocity, because it will allow them to pose as heroic. They wait for a war, so they can become a war leader. And as a result of all this, they are utterly unsuited to high office.

And, given the constant convening of COBRA every time a sparrow farted when he first came into power, I would include Gordon Brown in that list of unsuitable leaders more interested in the melodrama of their office rather than the actual role. But there’s nothing new in Brown being called a unsuitable wanker on this blog…

*Ok, ok, Hillary won’t get a hard-on, I know…

Election 2008: Yep, it should be Obama

Clinton wins, Obama is winning, the contest grinds on and McCain must be grinning.

Cheap, half-baked rhymes aside, the real winner of the most recent Democrat primary is once again John McCain. Clinton lurches on in her flagging campaign, resembling more than ever an unconvincing masked psychopath in an eighties slasher movie. Her. Campaign. Just. Won’t. Die! Obama must be properly pissed off with her. Whatever he does, however many delegates he wins, she just comes back for one more scare.

Her most recent victory has led to another round of smugness from the Clinton campaign. This victory can be used to prove any number of deeply unlikely conclusions, as long as those conclusions are that Clinton is great and cab beat McCain, and Obama can’t. Because he’s a loser. The most recent Clinton campaign strategy is to ask why Obama can’t win big states.

Which seems like a relevant point. Until you realise that, whilst Clinton won the most recent primary, she should have won it by a much higher margin. And that months ago, she was the presumptive Democratic nominee. And that Obama is ahead in the delegate count. And that the only reason why Obama can’t win the larger states is because Clinton is running against him. Something that, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, won’t be a problem in November.

My opinion counts for the square root of fuck all, when it comes to the US election – after all I don’t even have a vote. But I can’t help but think that, right now, Obama deserves the Democrat nomination. He has come from nowhere and, despite the massive flaws of wanting to attack Pakistan and of having *no* policies whatsoever, he has managed to become the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, on the other hand, should have clinched the nomination by now, but she is only holding onto even the slightest chance of winning through a mix of dogged persistence and what were once certain landslides becoming tight, grudging victories. This primary season was Clinton’s to lose. And despite the result of yesterday, she has pretty much lost it.

Clinton should stand aside, and let Obama start to concentrate on a victory for the Democrats in the winter. But she won’t concede, even if it costs her party the White House in November. Because if she doesn’t win, she doesn’t care who does.

Election 2008: Bring Me War!!

We’ve had Obama threatening to attack Pakistan. We’ve had John McCain threatening to “Bomb Iran”. To the tune of “Barbara Ann”. To date, Hillary Clinton’s solitary selling point for me was her failure to make bellicose, hawkish statements about attacking other nation. So it is pretty depressing to see that she has jumped on the attack bandwagon, and joined McCain in proposing the bombing of Iran. Albeit in a much less musical way:

A row erupted when Mrs Clinton was asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. She replied that: "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... (if they attack Israel) we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

Hmmm. I’m no nuclear strategist, but I can’t help but think that nuking one state in response to them nuking another state is pretty much how things slip out of control and we end up with a nuclear holocaust. And, y’know, there are no real winners from a nuclear holocaust.

Ok, ok, we are talking about a fairly extreme scenario here, where Iran would be the first to push the button and Israel has been destroyed. But it is worrying both that the US voters seem to expect their Presidential candidates to take part in this sort of sabre rattling, and that the presidential candidates seem to be A-Ok with meeting these expectations for sabre rattling.

One of these people – McCain, Obama or Clinton – will have their finger on the proverbial button come next January. And yes, they may, conceivably have to push it. But, fuck me, can’t they be a little less happy to discuss the prospect of global nuclear annihilation? And can’t they, in the case of McCain, anyway, be a little less gleeful when discussing that prospect?

When blogging previously about the US campaign, the song “Bad Moon Rising” popped into my head. Reading this story, this afternoon, the DJ has changed the track. It is now “Don’t Fear The Reaper."

Come on, sing with me! One, two, three, four – “All our times have come/Here, but now they’re gone…”

Dear Hillary, here's £1.3 million, with love, from Elton

Elton John has made some money for Hillary Clinton. A lot of money, in fact. £1.3 million. Wish he would do a fundraiser for me. I could do with £1.3 million. And I would promise not to waste it on a failing presidential campaign.

Still, Elton has been quite passionate in his support of Clinton. He’s almost completely wrong in his reasons for being passionate about her, but at least he is passionate. He says:

"There is no-one more qualified to lead America."

Maybe, in Elton’s humble opinion. Of course, I can’t think of many people less qualified to talk about who is qualified to lead America that Elton John. Homer Simpson, maybe. But Homer is a fictional ejit, so could never be more qualified than Elton. Because at least Elton isn’t fictional.

The BBC also notes that Elton thinks he knows why Clinton is behind in the race:

He also accused people who think Mrs Clinton is an unsuitable candidate of being sexist. "I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country, and I say to hell with them," he told the crowd.

Hmmm. Not entirely sure it is misogyny that is costing Mrs Clinton the campaign. Sure, there will be some misogynistic voters, but I think a lot of the votes have gone against Hillary because people just plain don’t like her. For what it is worth, I reckon she is the best candidate who has run this time out. She’s not hinted at attacking Pakistan, like Obama; she doesn’t sing “Bomb Iran” like McCain; and she is not a total sky fairy worshipping theocratic nutjob like Huckabee. But she has missed the point that, at least on some levels, elections are popularity contests. So there is nothing wrong with being popular with the voters.

Rather than with ageing piano playing rock stars.

Election 2008: Clinton, Rats, Sinking Ship, etc

In my humble opinion it can only be a matter of time before Hillary Clinton drops out of the campaign for the Democrat nomination. Then again, I could be wrong. I thought that John Kerry would probably beat George W. Bush back in 2004. I thought Charles Kennedy would cling to the leadership of the Liberal Democrats. And I thought David Cameron would struggle in the polls against Gordon Brown. So I am often wrong. But there is evidence (aside from the results) that the Clinton campaign is struggling. Personnel are starting to leave, like proverbial rats from the proverbial sinking ship.

The most recent departure, owing to a “conflict of interest” (which is surely synonymous with “spending more time with my family”), is Chief Strategist Mark Penn. I rather think he is leaving because whatever strategies he has come up with to achieve the overall objective of making Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee have not really worked. In fact, they seem to have helped to make, the way things are going, Obama the Democratic nominee. But if this theory is correct I can understand why the Clinton campaign came up with another excuse. After all, “sacked for failing” may be sending out the wrong message to the voters.

And yet, despite standing down, Penn will still be part of the campaign. According to the BBC Clinton’s campaign manager said:

“…he would "continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign".”

Nice. That seems to be a new definition of leaving a job that I haven’t been made aware of. You leave your job, and yet you keep on doing it. For me, this sets a dangerous political precedent. Imagine if George W. Bush follows this logic. Next year, after Bush leaves the White House, he could cite this precedent and try to continue with his presidency. I doubt he will do, though, as I reckon he's quite lazy. Far worse would be Gordon after the next election, when hopefully he has been given his marching orders by the electorate, trying to continue in his role as PM. That would be a fucking disaster.

Still, my point stands – the Clinton campaign is suffering. It is difficult to know how it will recover, and I think the day when Clinton is sat alone in her campaign office, without funds and without staff (with even her husband having deserted her, probably for the golf course) is looming. It must be a sad – if not devastating – time for any candidate, particularly one who used to be the presumptive nominee. But it is happening, slowly but surely. And those close to Clinton will fade into the background, not wanting to be too closely linked to a campaign that did, at the end of the day, fail.

Election 2008: Don't Drop Out

The Democratic Primary Season is grumbling on in search of a victor, like an incontinent old woman in a supermarket, desperately trying to find the Tudor Rose sherry. It says something that even those in the Democratic party are getting concerned about the length of the contest. Not for the same reasons I am (i.e. sheer, raw, gnawing boredom), but rather because of fears of what will happen when a winner does finally emerge to take on the ancient John McCain. The BBC reports:

"Mrs Pelosi, a senior Democrat, told ABC News it was important to get behind one candidate if the party expected to win the White House in November."

And:

"Her comments come after those made by the Democrat's National Chairman, Howard Dean who said that he'd like to see the race concluded by early July."

Which rather defeats the point of democracy for me. I mean, surely the race should go on until either the end date occurs, or one of the candidates drops out of their own volition. Yeah, it might be inconvenient, but democracy will give you those downsides as well as giving you some benefits. Obama seems to have got this message – although I’d imagine the sentiments were expressed through clenched teeth in an angry, bitter tone:

"Mr Obama has distanced himself for calls for Mrs Clinton to concede the race, saying she should be able to compete as long as she is able and has supporters."

Quite. Although it is quite telling that neither Dean not Pelosi embrace one candidate over the other. Maybe both seem themselves as potential Vice-Presidential candidates. And an Obama-Pelosi ticket might prove to be very popular…

Deja Vu

DK is running this rather amusing picture of Hillary Clinton:


Which is rather droll, but not 100% realistic I fear. Mainly because I saw this picture a few years ago of the incumbent President:

Real or not, you could argue that both are true...

Hillary Clinton (War Hero)

Hillary Clinton came under fire from a sniper in Bosnia, you know. Fuck me, she's brave. She's like that John McCain - she's seen violence on the battlefield, she's put her neck on the line. Ok, she's never been the prisoner of the Vietcong and faced crippling torture, but she's seen conflict, alright? So she gets my vote (which would probably be a tiny comfort for Hillary, if I had a vote in this election).

And I should know about conflict. I've just got back from fighting in Iraq, and I hot footed it to Iraq straight from the Afghan battlefield. Prior to that, I fought in the Falklands, did a couple of tours of duty over in Northern Ireland during the "troubles". My time in France during the Second World War is the stuff legends are made of, but the horrors of that war have nothing on the terrible memories I have of the First World War. And I'm still proud of my part in the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Of course, the above is all bollocks. My natural cowardice will always keep me away from any battlefield; hell, I'm the first out the door if I fight breaks out in a pub I'm in. I'm as likely to be found on a battlefield, under enemy fire as, well, Hillary Clinton.

Which is the problem with her story about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia - as footage released by the Obama campaign shows, it is basically bollocks. But that's ok, it is ok you see - because Clinton misspoke. Just misspoke, that's all. She just said the wrong words. That placed her in the middle of a violent conflict situation. Which is fair enough. I just miswrote when I claimed to have been in a load of the most famous conflicts of the past century and a half.

Except had I genuinely made those claims, no-one would allow me the defence of writing the wrong thing. I would be, quite rightly, a stupid lying bastard. So why isn't the media debunking Clinton as a stupid lying bastard (albeit in more polite terms)?

Because she's a politician, silly. When you lie, when I lie, we are liars. We rightly get slated. When a politician lies, they "misspoke" and we should take their "misspeaking" as proof positive that they are just fallible humans, like you or me. But they don't lie to better their positions. Oh no. That would be impossible.

And they wonder why we regard them with such deep contempt.

UPDATE:

Oh, now it is a mistake! Still not a lie, but a mistake. And "It proves I'm human". Yeah, Hillary. Proves you're human. Worrying you need to clarify that point, but there we go.

I must be losing it a bit, but whenever I see George W. Bush, and then the people running to replace him, I hear the lyrics to Bad Moon Rising by Creedence Clearwater Revival running through my head...