Warning: This post was published more than 9 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 9 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
I’m no expert on US politics, but I don’t see how you can write off a candidate who is nationally polling at 41%, versus a nearest rival at 24%. Clinton’s even leading by 6% over Obama in New Hampshire, so perhaps the results from Iowa mean less than many pundits suggests.
It’s mildly amusing that here in the UK, no-one really cares about the Republican candidates, to the extent that they weren’t even mentioned on one of the country’s biggest news bulletins last night. It’s hard to tell whether it’s because the nation is only interested in Clinton or because Bush has left us so disillusioned with the Republicans that we want to hear no more about the party…
I think either Clinton and Obama, as the two most likely Democratic candidates, would make a welcome change from Bush, who seems to have redefined the presidential role to achieve his own ends. Either would seem to provide a relatively level head in the White House – something that appears to have been missing for a while.
As for the Republicans… Meh, I have no idea… Who the hell is Huckabee?
But watching such a close race between seemingly good Democratic candidates is very exciting, and now I’ve started reading more about it, I’m becoming more and more addicted. It’s like The West Wing – but in real life! Well, almost.