Pres. Clinton?

Elaine

Oh dear. I'd be thrilled to see a woman finally take over the Executive Office, but I'm afraid Hilary is too much of a polarizing figure to be elected. If she ends up the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate, then most likely, it would mean an immediate victory for the Republicans.

André in Zuid-Afrika

Elaine

André in Zuid-Afrika

Elaine

André in Zuid-Afrika

:lol: I should go for prez of SA then! I could come and visit you in the White House, and we'll invite the rest of the Langcafe gang. We'd have a blast!

Elaine

greg in noord-frankrijk

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. J'sais pas quoi dire... She's been copy-pasting Bush way too much.

Loic

I doubt she'd be a Presidential candidate. Apart from the fact that she is a Democrat, there is nothing more noxious than seeing Bill Clinton getting the second wind of his career by being able to discreetly pull strings behind the scenes in the hypothetical event of a Rodham-Clinton administration.

Also, when was the last time an american President came from the Northeast? Yes, her husband may be from the south but she never became a fully paid-up member of that particular region of the country.

greg in noord-frankrijk

Is it a good idea ?

More options available :

In case of emergency :

André in Zuid-Afrika

:lol: :lol: That proves once more: A picture is worth a thousand words!

fab

" Oh dear. I'd be thrilled to see a woman finally take over the Executive Office "

I don't know but it seems that in a lot of countries, the idea to elect a woman as president has broken a strong tabu.
In Germany Angela Merkel, in Chile Michelle Bachelet...

For the moment, for the next election in France, one of the two favorite candidates is a woman, for the first time of French politic history I think. (I may be wrong)

her :

or him:

Benjamin [inactive]

I don't know all that much about Sarkozy, but one of my French friends said that he would move to Australia if Sarkozy were elected.

Maggie Thatcher caused such a stir for us that we haven't considered having a female prime minister since. LOL. ;)

greg in noord-frankrijk

Porthos · My views on Hillary

Her husband was a PIMP! Except for his extra-marital affair with Monica, which I don't believe is becoming of a president, or any man for that matter, regardless of how ugly and aloof their spouse is (Hillary was both). But she comes across as power hungry, hypocritical, and opportunistic. Her morals seem to change with the wind. Her ideals appeal to whatever is popular at the present moment. She changed from being a flaming liberal, enviromental pinko first lady, to a right wing, war mongering senator, in the span of eight years. She is not truly liberal or conservative at heart. She is just an opportunist like Bonaparte.

America is too conservative and traditional for a female presidential candidate to be successful. If the Dems go with her, they are ruined, and will be forced to cede the White House, yet again, to a Republican, who will serve the interest of oil companies and defense contractors. The only man in the Republican party deserving of the presidency is John McCain. That guy is a pimp. He is a moderate, who isn't afraid to speak his mind, even when it means going against the party line. The guy has balls, and character. If not, he is at least the most convincing[i] in America.

Loic

I must say that I am inclined towards John McCain as well with Condi Rice as his running mate.

I hope the Democratic Party choose Hiliary Clinton because it would simply maximise the chance of the GOP maintaining another term in the White House.

greg in noord-frankrijk

Porthos

fab

"Greg, what does that mean? You don't have party rivalry in France"

What Greg wanted to point (I think) is that the political choice in the USA is in reality limited to two parties which govern alternatively without that much deep differences/

In France we have much more parties (too much I think), and it can also be a problem because the votes can spred to parties that would never have any chance to have majority, it it can let the path open for extreme parties. That what happened in 2002, there have been so much multiple leftist candidatures that none of them could manage to the second round, while about half of the people had voted for the left. The result is we had a second round with one right candidate (Chiracà and an extreme right candidate, but both of them had not so much votes each one (20% an 16% I think). For the second round the left had to vote for the moderate right (Chirac), because no other left party was still.

Tiffany

Better than Italy's scheme. They can have lots of parties, but there are always two major ones and the minor ones don't really matter (thinking about that IS sorta like here. Anyone remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot?). In the last election, the forerunners of those two parties were 1.) Berlusconi - the current leader who likened himself to both Jesus and Napolean and was involved in multiple scandals (and I'm not talking about the personal kind!) 2) Prodi - who they had already kicked out of office in favor of Berlusconi last time. And people wonder why Italy is such a bureaucratic mess.

By the way, what was wrong with the former President Clinton? The American public ousted him because his personal life was not up to scratch. Really, how many men readily admit to affairs unless they totally hate their wives? Other than his public life, he was decent at his job - president. He didn't run the country to the ground.

Meanwhile we have a President now who seems to know nothing but how to start wars, flubb public speeches, and rewrite bills to suit himself - yet some still support him because he private life is a-ok.

In my opinion, we should be more outraged with the guy who can't do the job he was elected for - maintaining the country!

Benjamin [inactive]

Tiffany

Loic

The GOP is usually less protectionist than the Democrats and that can only be good for America's trade partners. I was quite disappointed with the present administration at some points when they too succumbed to pork-barrel politics and started accusing China of dumping before slapping textile quotas on imports in order to protect uncompetitive industries back home.

But if you look at it, the Republicans have signed more FTAs with other countries than the Clinton administration.

Do you think an angry blue-collar Democratic representative such as Dick Gephardt would ever consent to that? He is always railing against the out-sourcing of jobs and finding bogeymen in foreign countries such as China and India.

Besides, we must keep in mind that odious George Bush might be to the majority of the world, he is not the GOP. I am not asking for him to continue being President even if it becomes legally possible; I am just saying that the odds of America's trading partners having a mutually beneficial relationship with America are higher than a Democratic President who would have to pander to the more radical left-wing elements of his party.

Besides, the Democrats have a very incoherent strategy of Iraq. Some are calling for a schedule for eventual troop withdrawal while others are calling for an immediate departure of US presence. I don't know what to say, but one thing is certain: Iraq needs to be nursed for the time being and any premature abandonment of the nascent state would only lead to infanticide.

Porthos

The DLC is the moderate, more right-wing oriented wing of the Democratic party, and includes once flaming liberals like Hillary, and they are the ones in control of the party. America put an end to true left-wing politics with the start of the 1980s. Bill Clinton was a pro-trade Democrat, and in many cases, the Bush administration has favored protectionism more than Democrats ever did in recent memory. The textile quotas, the steel tarrifs that Bush implemented were all very detrimental to both ourselves, and our trading partners. The Democrats traditionally cater to the blue collar unions, but their voice is all but non-existent these days, as the time of the power of the unions is long dead.

I like low taxes, and a limit on spending, which is what the GOP claims to favor. But in reality, they just cut taxes, and increase spending, only instead of going to social programs, it goes to defense contractors. The result is a massive budget deficit, which drains national savings, and increases the national debt, resulting in a heavier financial burden for future generations. And because of the debt and the compounding interest which is incurred, future generations will have a heavier tax burden, which means slower economic growth. The Democrats would raise income and corporate taxes, and maintain present spending levels. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I love the fact that the capital gains tax and dividend taxes were cut, and I don't think they cost the treasury any revenue. But, the tax cuts on upper income groups were not necessary, and because they were not accompanied by any decrease in spending, resulted in a lot of red ink. From an economic standpoint, the best situation is what we had in the 1990s. A republican congress, hell bent on limiting spending, and a democratic president, refusing to friviously cut taxes. That's the best mix in my opinion. If one party controls all branches of government, things get too radical, and they abuse their position. If the government is equally divided, things are well balanced.

Loic

I forgot to add: the Democrats favour abortion as a means of birth control. While I do not condemn people who support such an idea, it is absolutely anathema to my personal beliefs.

George Bush has not fulfilled the classic definitions of a classical right-wing conservative. I am going to reiterate once again that he is not the GOP and that his policies are more often than not a form of dog-whistle politics. His team are more interested in pleasing their constitutuent power base than reaching out to voters who shun them. I recall a quote made by a senior figure from a previous Republican administration: Sc*** the Jews - they never vote for us anyway.

They are dogged by so many scandals at the moment so maybe all this discussion on who would occupy the White House is purely academic.

Tiffany

greg in noord-frankrijk

Loic

Tiffany: Abortion is a very polarising subject and there are no right or wrong answers to it. Personally, I am against abortion and am hence against a politician who also advocates it as one of the many means of birth control. To me, it should always be the last option when all other possibilties have been exhausted.

I think children are a beautiful gift from God. I always wonder how I'd feel if my parents had chosen to aborted me. Not a very pleasant feeling, I can tell you. I think I'd be floundering somewhere in limbo, if it even exists.

Greg: So hindsight has told us that the Iraqi war was a debacle. I think we had a similar argument in the past: to withdraw now would only make matters worse. Can you honestly cross your heart and swear to God that quitting Iraq now is beneficial to the Iraqi people?

They are torn apart by secterian strife at the present moment - they need the international community to police them as well as to stop them from killing one another.

Elaine

Porthos

Loic

Elaine: Oh dear. I don't want to stir a hornet's nest with my views on abortion and how I perceive the Democrats to be friendly to abortion.

Without getting into a deeper quagmire, I'd reiterate that the killing of any forms of life is a sin (even mosquitoes count!) which is why I am against both abortion as well as the capital punishment. End of story.

Porthos

The American economy is not in any dire danger, and our chronic trade deficit is not a bad thing like the news media portrays it to be. If this were an economics form, I would go into more detail, but I'm choosing to spare myself and my keyboard the extra work. A large, chronic trade surplus like Japan's and Europe's is actually a bad thing, as it implies an excess of savings, and lack of investment opportunity, which itself implies weak domestic demand. The result is a slow moving economy. Also, the main reason the U.S. has such a large trade deficit (which translates into a capital account surplus) with Europe and Japan, is not because we are not producing enough, but because our economy grows faster, which means that our purchasing power and demand increases at a faster rate than their's does.

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4390
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-002.html
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4390

My economic philosophy? End all taxation of savings and investment, eradicate all trade barriers, and invest large sums in education, infrastructure, and civilian R&D. I would leave personal income tax rates where they are, because a certain amount of tax revenue is needed to support a social safety net.

greg in noord-frankrijk

Porthos

The American economy is far stronger and more dynamic than the economies of mainland Europe will ever be, unless Europe dramatically reduces regulation and taxation. And do you ever notice how Anglo-Saxon economies grow faster than the Euro zone nations like Germany and France?

As for America's supposedly low savings rate:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_03/b3916122_mz029.htm

http://www.bc.edu/centers/crr/facts/jtf_8.pdf
http://www.prospect.org/web/page....name=ViewPrint&articleId=5234

A very important one worth reading please:
http://www.brookings.edu/printme....f902412b3ff3b80005e830a141465.xml
http://www.brookings.edu/printme....f902412b3ff3b80005e830a141465.xml

American manufacturing:
http://www.wsjclassroomedition.co...hive/05oct/econ_manufacturing.htm

Another paper on trade deficits:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dg081999.html

I encourage you to read all of those, especially the articles about the U.S. savings rate.

Loic

I know that america's economy is far more dynamic and competitive than other OECD countries. This competitive advantage is also likely to be maintained in the future if you pause to consider that America is greying at a slower rate than Europe, Japan as well as China.

In fact, many eastern European countries would reach a stage where they become old before they become rich. Same goes for China despite its magnificent rates of growth.

The Economist last week wrote about a correlation between a regulated market and low marginal productivity. I fail to understand why people are always harping upon the importance of a social safety net. Did our grandparents live with such a safety net? They might even have thrived and flourished, didn't they? Why are subsequent generations always more demanding and dependent than the previous generations?

Joanne

*pushes thread back on topic

* It's a ho-down, y'all!

Elaine

greg in noord-frankrijk

Me too !

Joanne

Loic

Personally, I hope that the Democrats nominate Mrs Clinton. It'd make for compelling entertainment for the rest of the world.

Senator Joseph Lieberman seems like a very decent bloke. He is sensible enough to not jump onto the bandwagon calling for an immediate retreat from this quagmire called Iraq. He has the courage and the vision to realise that America and her allies need to to persist until a solution has been found. Unfortunately, the price he had paid for holding onto his views is to be ostracised from his party.

Since America is the most powerful nation in the world, I feel that an ideal President would espouse views that also further global interests and not just echo parochial national concerns. He should ideally be multilinggual, tolerant and also a bit of an iconoclast who questions established assumptions. Why, for instance, is talking about positive discrimination with regards to university admissions taboo? Why must people have to depend on the Government for their medical needs? Why must the border security be so vigilant when it is a well-documented fact that immigrants have a net positive contribution to the economy?

As the population ages and the number of retirees increase, these are very pertinent questions that need to be raised.

Joanne

Porthos

For example, the immigrants in the state of California alone, add a net positive contribution to the annual GDP in the amount of $100 billion!

Joanne

Uriel

Obama and Hillary were on the cover of Newsweek at Christmas, as frontline contenders for the Democratic nomination.

I think Hillary would be a losing choice for the Democrats; too many people just hate her. I doubt that they will take a gamble on her. She's a shrewd woman, but not likeable, and it's a rare president who wins without charisma and affability. Obama fits that mold more closely; I think he would be the smart money.

It's hard not to respect John McCain. I don't agree with all of his views, of course, but I give him far more credit than most of his compatriots in the GOP. Too bad he insists on being a Republican....

Loic

I think choosing either Barack Hussein Obama or that former First Lady whose name has slipped my mind would be revolutionary regardless of the decision made. Both are minorities in the political arena. Both have contrived to paint themselves as moderate who are able to energise the base as well as appeal to americans of a more conservative bent.

But seriously, is the country ready to elect either a black or a woman to the White House? There'd be detractors who'd knock them down at the polling stations just because the candidate does not fit the traditional mould of a leader.

Uriel

Oh, I don't think being black or female would make much difference any more. Look at Condolleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both black, both political heavy-hitters, both well respected for their intelligence and competence regardless of party. And women are in combat now -- routinely. They're CEO's. People are more used to seeing females in a position of power in business and in politics these days. It's still a man's world in many ways, but it's not the old days of Geraldine Ferraro's failed bid for VP. (To be honest, we can thank Hillary Clinton for her role as a steely-eyed, tough broad who can hold her own with the guys -- even if we don't want to thank her with the keys to the Oval Office.)

Those old chestnuts of discrimination have long since been replaced by newer, shinier ones, like gays.

Loic

I think we flatter ourselves if we believe that everyone is modern and progressive enough in this day and age to accept a minority. Racism and sexism remain soft underbellies that are easily exposed given an appropriate situation. I think the Democrats would eventually plumb for a safer presidential candidate - one that would have at least a chance of carrying the South.

Collin Powel and Condoleeza Rice were not democratically elected, but appointed based on recognition of abilities and talent. The masses sometimes are not able to recognise a good thing when they see one.

Pres. Clinton?

My views on Hillary