⇒ The disagreements and problems that dogged Miss Rice's trip were in stark contrast to the experience of Hillary Clinton, the US Senator and wife of President Bill Clinton, who was visiting Israel at the same time.
Mrs Clinton, who is widely tipped as the next Democrat candidate for the White House, was well received at a number of events.
Has the campaign started already? Condoleeza Rice versus Hillary Clinton? Catfight! Catfight!
Update. Funny thing, most of the people who replied belong to the right of the political spectrum. What about the left, progressive, democratic side? Aren't they looking forward to see Hillary versus Condy? Or, in case a catfight does not appeal to them, maybe they could suggest something more exciting? I may have a couple of ideas.
Update. Finally, a solid, I would say definitely progressive plan!
Mrs Clinton, who is widely tipped as the next Democrat candidate for the White House, was well received at a number of events.
Has the campaign started already? Condoleeza Rice versus Hillary Clinton? Catfight! Catfight!
Update. Funny thing, most of the people who replied belong to the right of the political spectrum. What about the left, progressive, democratic side? Aren't they looking forward to see Hillary versus Condy? Or, in case a catfight does not appeal to them, maybe they could suggest something more exciting? I may have a couple of ideas.
Update. Finally, a solid, I would say definitely progressive plan!
no subject
no subject
no subject
I say, catfight!
no subject
On the other hand, Hillary as the next President... poor country...
> the fight would be uphill for Condy
upHill
no subject
no subject
Are you talking about the NY senator's race? So you do not believe that he had his cancer treatment at the time? I thought it was a true reason to drop out.
no subject
no subject
In my picture:
Judy was the mayor of NYC till 2002. In 2002 he was going to be on the ballot for NY senator against Hillary. That was their first fight and I know nothing about any other pre-911 (i.e. pre-2001) races. Till the moment when he was diagnosed with the cancer he was running in the full steam. After the diagnose he claimed that he needed private time, time to cure, etc. Which I bought as the truth back then.
What do I miss?
no subject
Only the fact that Rudi dropped out of that race before 9/11.
no subject
no subject
If the war is considered as mostly won and a non-issue, Hillary running for President - will be the only thing that may get Republican voters to vote in numbers.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Don't get me wrong, I think Condi is a good bureaucrat, but not much more than that. I would say she is too good to be an effective politician. This is the general problem with conservatives though: they are not ruthless enough.
The republicans must stop indulging in wishful thinking. Clittary is in for a kill!
no subject
I am not really interested. The last time I've heard the word "electability" was when it was used to explain why Democrats selected Kerry as their candidate.
Also, when you say that Condi is a "good bureaucrat, but not much more than that"... You see, the fact that you have never heard or read anything she said may not necessarily mean she had never said anything. Just an idea.
no subject
Consider me an average voter ;-)
no subject
That's easy.
"In real life, power and values are married completely."
But I agree with you, she is probably not electable. She is indeed too good to be an effective politician. What she writes is for "thinking Americans", but "one needs a majority" :-) :-(
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html
"There is an old argument between the so-called "realistic" school of foreign affairs and the "idealistic" school. To oversimplify, realists downplay the importance of values and the internal structures of states, emphasizing instead the balance of power as the key to stability and peace. Idealists emphasize the primacy of values, such as freedom and democracy and human rights in ensuring that just political order is obtained. As a professor, I recognize that this debate has won tenure for and sustained the careers of many generations of scholars. As a policymaker, I can tell you that these categories obscure reality.
In real life, power and values are married completely. Power matters in the conduct of world affairs. Great powers matter a great deal -- they have the ability to influence the lives of millions and change history. And the values of great powers matter as well. If the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, the world would look very different today -- Germany today might look like the old German Democratic Republic, or Latin America like Cuba."
Nice try, but no cigar
Talk about originality of thought! BTW, the statement "In real life, power and values are married completely." does not quite cut it as a bon mot. First, is there such a thing as a partial marriage? Second, we do have two separate factors (power and values), relative importance and interplay of which are interesting. To say that both are indeed important is not very informative...
Re: Nice try, but no cigar
"As a policymaker, I can tell you that these categories obscure reality."
Information is there, but the readers/listeners are supposed to make the final inference on their own (for a number of reasons).
I see this as a key to the choices the Administration was making: it was looking for the situations when the considerations of power and the considerations of values dictated the same actions, and the actions selected under this criterion were exactly the actions which were actually performed. It looks like doing it this way was/is the explicit policy guiding the decision process in this Administration, and it is actually innovative.
Re: Nice try, but no cigar
Re: Nice try, but no cigar
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2005-11-16 07:57 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2005-11-17 11:22 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
:-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject