Tim Blair

I'll take the first statement for $200, Alex...

How bizarre. Is Stephen puffing up the dwarves just to have something to use against Steyn? The article seemed to have nothing to do with American politics and everything to do with attacking Steyn.

Romei on the grand plan for 2015:

"As an aside, this makes life interesting for the world's most popular Democrat. If Bush scrapes home this year, Hillary Clinton runs against a fresh Republican contender (dream cage-of-death match-up: Condi Rice) in 2008 and puts a woman on the moon in the final year of her second term. A Democrat win in 2004 would upset that plan."

Remember, Mondale was ahead of Reagan at this time, Dukakis ahead of Bush 1 too and into the summer. Wait till August. This is the typical media hope/hype that will fall apart - as usual. How boring.

Hey, I've got a sense of humour. The idea of Stephen having to be the Australian's New York correspondent for three years is absolutely hilarious to me. Kind of like seeing Philip Adams win a trip to Disneyland.

You know what bothers me? CNN, the SUPPOSEDLY impartial news service - a day after the Hutton decision was announced, they print an article called "Blair in hot water". No mention of the severe rebuke of the BBC. Now TIME Magazine makes Blair look like an escaped convict. This is the OPPOSITE of what happened!

Yet the INSTANT an unscientific 1000 person poll shows Bush is in trouble, they LEAP all over the story like rabid dogs!

That's impartiality for you!

Speaking of the Hutton equiry, the BBC got it wrong from the outset. If they wanted the right outcome, they should have held their own enquiry as Australia's BBC, the ABC, did after Communications Minister Richard Alston charged it with misleading, biassed and anti-American war coverage.

The ABC, stung by the criticism, held their own enquiry and exonerated themselves. Sheer genius.

Didn't the lefties love the result of that one!

Stephen only says that because he doesn't have to vote for one of them.

This is the primary season, 7 candidates bashing Bush non-stop getting soundbites in the media; once the Dem nom (most likely Kerry at this point) and Bush face off, the GOP coffers will be set loose. Woe to the Dem this year.

How did Kerry get in? According to the polls just three weeks ago, the Dean juggernaut swept the Democrat primaries.

mateo_g

You hit the nail of the head. Bravo!

Of course, those in Australia will remember the infamous Morgan poll just before the 2001 election, which predicted a landslide for Beazley and the ALP.

This won't surpise you, but I think the Dem field is really strong. Well, Kucinich and Sharpton aside. Any of Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean or Lieberman would make a significantly better president than Bush.

maybe all of them together

Oh Stew, that's so funny. Oh -- you were serious?

Lets see...
Edwards is an ambulance chaser who only gives broad sweeping generalizations, Dean has foot-in-mouth disease, Kerry is more liberal than Sen. Kennedy (and thats liberal!), and of course we have my favorite - Gen. Clark. This guy was a Republican only a few years back, and is claiming he can stop all terrorist attacks forever.

This is by far the weakest bunch of nominees from either party I've seen in a primary in a long time. The entire Democratic cause is defeating Pres. Bush; where is the message of hope? Where is the positive ideals? Edwards is the only guy that has been trying that line of thinking but still attacks Bush in an irrational manner.

Debate, not accuse, fellas.

The real problem is that the wrong Sen. Kerrey is running. Had former Sen. Bob Kerry not have had an atrocity problem in Vietnam exposed he would have made a *much* better candidate than any of these bozos.

Stewart - talk about damning with faint praise.

Let's face it, even Andrea would make a better President than W.

(Oops. Just lowered myself to her level. Sorry.)

And mateo - defeating Bush IS the message of hope.

Jorg - I'm not sure what atrocity you're referring to, but surely you meant to say "had he not committed the atrocity" rather than "had the atrocity not been exposed".

Surely??

Agreed! About as bad maybe as the Republican slate in 96 that couldn't beat a weakened Clinton.
Lieberman has the most bona fides, but inspires no one. The rest of them have records that will be toasted by Rove and Co. Edwards has no positions on anything of substance, Dean has proven himself unable to deal with any negative comments directed at him by any of his primary opponents and is essentially dead, Clark is certifiably nuts (come on Michael Moore endorsed him!), and Kerry is so left wing and has flip - flopped to get there. His voting record is a minefield for his campaign and his post Vietnam tour (the male Jane Fonda) means he will get killed on war on terror issues.

Bush hasn't even campaigned yet! His biggest problem will be energizing his base who is not happy about spending. That will be his potential pitfall.

Returns coming in show Clark is in serious trouble. His supposed lead in OK didn't materialize and he is making comments that could be construed as "I am getting ready to check out."

Right now it looks like Kerry and Edwards, with Dean and maybe Lieberman hanging around for a while, but probably neither very long for this world.

Nemmie uttereth: "...defeating Bush IS the message of hope."

Hope for 'tards everywhere!