Well now, here's a bit of a surprise! Doyen of the left, Hillary Clinton, she who would be President in 2008, has received the backing of Rupert Murdoch, he allegedly of the right! The FT reports that the Wicked Witch will have a political fundraiser supported by the News Corporation Mogul. It adds that Hillary has now conquered the New York media by winning support from the New York Times, New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman -- and now Murdoch and the New York Post.
This should be a warning shot to Republicans. We have an incumbent President in W. who has almost entirely lost direction, and we have an ill-disciplined GOP which seems to lack any real focus or conservative vision. This could not be better news for Ms Hillary - who seeks to return to the White House and wreak further endless damage to the United States. Have we forgotten the degeneracy of the Clinton years already? Has Murdoch? The News Corp chief has a reputation for aligning himself with political winners - and this is a disturbing development for those of us authentically on the right.
May yet be true Colm, im all for women in power when theyre sharp, they tend to be rather effective. Did anyone see that young woman stand up to the bigots in Afghanistans Parliament, i think her name is Joya? *WOW* Naturally they set on her like wolves with fists and bottles (incl the other women MPs) and threatened to kill her as she left. She said there were two types of Mujahadin, the genuine ones and the ones 'who slaughtered innocents'
Posted by: Alison | May 09, 2006 at 07:08 PM
God protect us from this dreadful couple getting back into the White House!
Posted by: Aileen | May 09, 2006 at 07:27 PM
Hi Colm, Hi Alison
Thanks to over five years of the Bush administration, America's economic, political and moral decline has gained too much momentum to be arrested merely by electing a woman as President.
Hilary may not know much about Iraq but Bush didn't even know the name of the Dictator of Pakistan until he got elected. That same dictator is now one of Bush's closest allies in the so-called war on US-defined terror.
Posted by: Adrian | May 09, 2006 at 07:28 PM
Oh and Hi Aileen too! Also Daytrip and all the other fellas I didn't say Hi to.
Posted by: Adrian | May 09, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Hello Adrian. Ye of little faith! Goodness the West has faced worse and funnily enough it was usually the women who pulled them out. BUT thats not to say a Clinton would be up to the task.
Oh well. Wotshisname might be an ally but he's doing a crap job.
Posted by: Alison | May 09, 2006 at 07:35 PM
I mean wotshisname in Pakistan (not Bush) sorry - LOL!
Posted by: Alison | May 09, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Alison,
He's not only an ally but he's also America's most dependable partner in Asia. That's why he managed to stay dictator so long. If it wasn't for him you'd have had a hell of a time taking out the Taliban.
The West has faced worse than Bush? Don't tell me! How'd Laura Bush be as President?
Posted by: Adrian | May 09, 2006 at 07:39 PM
Ill remember that when im reminded of my wonderful tube jouney last July. Werent al my fellow commuters tripping back and forth to Pakistan? I havent yet made it back onto a tube. Im a wuss.
Yes it has Adrian. Dont be silly.
Posted by: alison | May 09, 2006 at 09:46 PM
If it wasn't for him you'd have had a hell of a time taking out the Taliban.
you mean the pakistani created/nurtured/supported taliban?
Posted by: daytripper | May 09, 2006 at 09:49 PM
DT,
I mean the American-sponsored Pakistan-nurtured Taliban.
Pakistan isn't being two-faced here - it's quite clear that Pakistan does exactly what the CIA tells it to do when it comes to sponsoring terrorists.
Posted by: Adrian | May 10, 2006 at 04:44 AM
Ya could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard about Murdoch. Don't know what's going on there but reading the comments has been interesting.
My opinion is the Hildebeast won't win. Unless. Well - hmmmm.
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | May 10, 2006 at 04:55 AM
Hi Monica!
Don't forget that Kerry was EVEN worse than Bush.
So it's not possible to predict the outcome of an American Presidential election until you know something about BOTH candidates.
Posted by: Adrian | May 10, 2006 at 04:57 AM
Ah, cattle futures about to do well again, then?
Posted by: dearieme | May 10, 2006 at 03:43 PM
Monica,
I agree that Hillary would be unlikely to win, although Adrian's point that it depends on the opponent is an important one. She'd do better against, say, Bill Frist. If the republicans are smart enough to nominate McCain she wouldn't have a prayer. That reminds me - if it does turn out to be Hillary vs. McCain, who would Troll vote for?
Posted by: Neal | May 10, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Forgot to add that I wouldn't want her to win. Regardless of whether she's accomplished anything in the Senate, the degree to which she's been trying to position herself in the center to get ready for 2008 is shameful.
Posted by: Neal | May 10, 2006 at 08:53 PM
McCain won't get there - the Republican base won't allow it. I highly doubt that the Hildebeast will either - too many democrats hate her including the head of the DNC.
As always it will be very interesting to watch.
Maybe the Constitution Party will come out big. (that was a joke)
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | May 11, 2006 at 01:24 AM