The first is about Hillary's Campaign working to keep Bill from stealing the spotlight from her... Its nice to see that she is being hidden again...in the spotlight, in the glare of bright lights...the focus will be on him talking about her... SO...will it be about her or about him? ... Every time he appears he diminishes her viability as a President. He sucks the air out of the room and she shrinks. She does not have the ability to stand alongside him as an equal...
When Bill Clinton joins his wife for their first major joint campaign appearances tomorrow, the former president is planning to play the role of "biographer in chief," telling "the story" of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- and directing some of his high-wattage charisma toward her.
But can the former president keep from stealing the show?
Already, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has questioned whether the former first lady can claim experience in the Oval Office based on her husband's terms in office. Highly popular among Democratic loyalists, the former president has a tendency to overshadow his wife in public.And, as always, introducing the good Clinton in public hazards reminding voters of the bad, particularly his affair with a White House intern and subsequent impeachment by the House nearly a decade ago
How will she avoid the comparison of Bill Clinton's successes being the result of a Republican Congress that wanted to accomplish something and her being a member of a Democratic Congress stonewalling a Republican President... Do the Democrats even have an agenda? Does Hillary have anything to offer except her stealth takeover of the US medical industry.. (Expanding the SCHIP program to include all kids plus a few adults, + expanding Medicare by dropping the minimum age to 55 + expanding VA care to all who served whether service related or no... with the majority of the country covered by one federal freebie or another, it'll be prudent to consolidate the programs into one big Canadian rationing system... except for the rich...)
The Washington Post had an article examining the role that independents will play in the 2008 elections...
Unless they sit on their hands...... Which would throw the contest to the fanatics of either side... Will the "Kos-Kidz" out number the "Right Wing rabid radio Nut Jobs"-? What role will the Christian Coalition play?..... Unless the independents get off their collective asses they will face choices they won't like. Quite simply; If the party doesn't know who you are, they won;t run anyone who voices your concerns... Being an independent is being UNINVOLVED... why should either party run a candidate that may/may-not appeal to an undifferentiated and uninvolved mass-? The people who voted Democrat last time did so because of the war in Iraq... But what do they know of the war?... What was the Democrat platform? What was the alternative vision offered?....
The study is a comprehensive examination of a broad segment of the electorate -- about three in 10 voters call themselves independents -- that is poised to play the role of political power broker in 2008. Independents split their votes between President Bush and Kerry in 2004 but shifted decisively to the Democrats in 2006, providing critical support in the Democratic takeover of the House and the Senate.
The new survey underscores the Republican Party's problems heading into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a clear victory in Iraq.
Seventy-seven percent of independents said they would seriously consider an independent presidential candidate, and a majority said they would consider supporting Bloomberg, whose recent shift in party registration from Republican to unaffiliated stoked speculation about a possible run in 2008.
Rabble can be blown by the strongest winds from one side to the other... No agendas necessary. No alternatives, no competing plans, visions or even ideas.... Just straight out demagoguing lowest denominator rabble rousing-? We will get what we deserve... Who can command the most media? Truth matters not. Lies matter not.... Appearance IS reality.... Oh, wait where have we heard that before?
Drudge reports that the NYTimes will do a hit piece on Fred Thompson's sons in the Monday paper. They will supposedly detail how the children have made lots and lots of money as lobbysists since Dear-Old-Dad Fred was in and out of Congress.... Since he has been out of office for a number of years, why is what they do relevant-? Oh-Wait..... He's a Republican.... And he's NOT yet running for office.... I wonder what other children of actors the NYTimes will profile? or what other children of politicians?... Where is Chelsea Clinton-? How is she doing these days? Appearance IS reality...give the appearance of corruption and its better than actual crimes.... It can be denied and denied for months. A real crime will only be a blip one-week headline... Look at what Congress has done with the non-crime of DoJ prosecutors. Look at the Valeria Plame debacle... Much ado about nothing... A real crime would have villains, spoils, noble causes, heroes, damsels in distress... The appearance of a crime need not have any of these elements...
The Telegraph of London reports that a study shows bbies lying from the age of six months...
Are we all natural born politicians.... ?
Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months. Simple fibs help to train them for more complex deceptions in later life.
Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old.
Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention.
By the age of two, toddlers could use far more devious techniques, such as bluffing when threatened with a punishment.