I don't know about you, but I was really glad to read the following story. Hillary Clinton (my senator) has been to Estonia on several occasions. I remember that in the hall of Tallinn Central Hospital there was a photo of her. While some people in the US dislike her, I have to say I was happy to know that Hillary had been in the same hospital where I was awaiting the birth of our first-born.Today, I read that Hillary and John McCain (the Republican senator from Arizona)had a drinking competition while in Eestimaa:
NEW YORK Jul 28, 2006 (AP)— If Hillary Clinton ends up running against John McCain for the presidency in 2008, the two might vaguely remember competing against each other once before.
That would have been in the summer of 2004 in Estonia where, according to The New York Times, the margin of victory was not votes, but shots of vodka.
The instigator of the after-dinner contest, the Times reported for its Saturday editions, was Clinton, D-N.Y. McCain, R-Ariz., readily agreed.
Aides to McCain did not return messages seeking comment Friday. Philippe Reines, Clinton's spokesman, played coy.
"What happens in Estonia stays in Estonia," he said Friday evening.
5 kommentaari:
Sorry to be sort of off the subject but, Hillary is looking and sounding more like just another right-winger. I don't understand how just two parties can adequetly cover the whole huge country like America? What's the difference between a righ-wing Democrat and left-wing Republican anyways?
Anyhow, it must take a bottle or two of booze to melt that icy woman.
I can see where these two might argue. A Democrat like Hillary might wish to preserve more of McCain's state of Arizona as national park land, but McCain would resist that because it would be against the interests of the economic class of his state.
There isn't that much difference between these two, though. Republicans dislike McCain because he often splits with them on many issues. Democrats don't like the way Hillary works with the GOP.
Hillary's no right-winger, it's just that in Europe moderate or centrist Americans are often automatically seen as right-wingers.
I think that in the vital issues such as war and peace Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain would be about the same. In domestic issues there would definitely be differences. I'd love to see 2008 to be between them, it would be a great race between two larger-than-life senators (most Senators are nothing like these two).
I also think that in those issues where the two moderate senators agree, they would make their case from the opposite directions and underline different reasons for coming to the same conclusion. HRC would have to talk to liberal Democrats to convince them in the primaries and McCain would have to talk to conservative Republicans to convince them in the GOP primaries. Because of the primary system even moderates will woo the core constituencies of their parties. John Kerry did a superb job in getting his party behind him and his primary results were fantastic but switching to the national candidate was hard for him. The primary candidate and the candidate that is already on the national ticket usually speak different languages, even if they have to try to remain the same person.
Kos - the influential American liberal blogger - actually thinks the new primary set up - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, benefits a different senator - John Edwards - the most.
Kerry took me by surprise in '04, so it remains to be seen who will win in '08.
As the heavyweight he is, I was actually pretty much expecting Kerry to do well in the 2004 primaries. Edwards had to start from scratch in 2004, he was just a first-term senator who many didn't take seriously. Clark had become a Democrat too late to win in the primaries. Dean was always going to be a risky choice and easy for the Republicans to label a radical. Kerry didn't face truly tough competition in 2004, it'll be totally different in 2008.
A Kerry vs. Edwards primary in 2008 would be different since Edwards has more experience now than he had last time around. Having been the losing veep candidate is not as damning has having topped the losing ticket. Edwards is a little bit more experienced now, which is good for him, whereas Kerry can be too experienced. Kerry had just the right experience in 2004, but usually the four years after having lost a presidential campaign do not do any good for the losing candidate. Nixon had luck as he didn't run again in 1964, when he surely would've lost a second time in a row (like Dewey and Stevenson), and in 1968 1960 had already been forgotten. Still today Dewey and Stevenson are remembered by historians and those precedents scare political parties from giving a losing candidate a second chance.
Postita kommentaar