Saturday
CNN man to Senators Clinton and Obama: "People all over the country are saying if you got together it would be a Dream Ticket".
Senator Obama: "I was a friend of Senator Clinton before the nomination race began and I will be a friend of Senator Clinton's after the nomination race is over".
Senator Clinton: "The Republicans are more-of-the-same, we represent change. You can tell that just by looking at us".
In short "change" means race and gender - not lower government spending or less regulations.
Indeed both Senators Clinton and Obama think the Republicans should have spent even more taxpayers money on health, education and welfare, and passed even more regulations.
As for CNN - it is like the rest of the main stream media. It can not ask tough questions to 'liberals' because its folk share all their basic assumptions.
Dream ticket? Well yes, I suppose so, nightmares are dreams after all.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at February 2, 2008 01:58 PM
Paul. Nice piece but shouldn't that read "CAN'T ask tough question to liberals" or am I missing something?
Posted by Jerome Thomas at February 2, 2008 02:12 PM
Seems to me the Democrats are the least liberal on this occasion. They seem entirely preoccupied with race and gender. The contrast with the republican white male pool of candidates could not be more stark - they have accepted what they are and have put forward their best people.
The final sentence of your piece also confused me, by the way. Though I'm sure they may be reasons why a similar viewpoint does enable the asking of some tough questions, I don't think its a general rule.
Posted by Simon Gibbs at February 2, 2008 02:25 PM
Yes Mr Thomas - "my bad" as the Californians say.
I should have typed "can not..." I missed out the "not".
Posted by Paul Marks at February 2, 2008 02:30 PM
I have been dreading the time that the phrase "Dream Ticket" would appear. But like death and taxes it always will
Posted by Gordon at February 2, 2008 07:43 PM
Hillary's has a, well, interesting new fan(Link).
Headline: Crazy liberal bitch endorsed by even crazier neocon bitch?
Posted by Cynic at February 2, 2008 11:09 PM
Cynic
Ann Coulter may be may be many things, but she is not a neocon.
Posted by Paul Marks at February 2, 2008 11:24 PM
There is a rational explination possible.
Ann Coulter does not believe in evolution, and Hillary Clinton also stresses the ability of will over physical reality (with her claims that she will cure cancer, autism and so on).
The only difference is that Ann Coulter places her faith in God and for Hillary Clinton it is her own will (rather than that of God) that controls the physical universe.
But I am sure they can work round this difference.
Posted by Paul Marks at February 2, 2008 11:29 PM
I felt bad that you chaps had Brown versus Cameron,but it looks like we have it just as bad
here. Coulter is always good entertainment- nasty but at least witty and logical,where the the libs are just nasty and humorless. Thank-you ,Cynic for the link
Posted by renminbi at February 3, 2008 04:55 AM
I am not so sure rnminbi.
I just heard John McCain say (yet again) that he is for reducing government spending (not just earmarks either), and cutting taxes (including corporate taxes and taxes on investment such as capital gains tax).
David Cameron does not go around saying things like this.
"Yes Paul, but John McCain is just trying to win on Tuesday - he does not mean any of this stuff".
O.K. just call me an incurable fluffy optimist.
Posted by Paul Marks at February 3, 2008 10:40 PM
