Hilary Clinton

[DiabloScott]

I spelt her name with one "L".

That was the old way of spelling the name, Hilary.

Must be the old way of spelling "spelled" too.

I'd vote for her if she got the nomination, but I won't vote for her in the primary unless she already has it wrapped up by then.

Now if all the JimBob chicken diddlers would start saying they'll leave the country if she gets elected, that might get me on her campaign financing list.

 

[wolfix]

So who will get the Republican nomination ?
John McCain, perhaps ?

Today...... Probably. But we are just starting out. The US Presidential campaign is similar to the TDF. We have the potentials, but we have a long way to go. Today , we just had the intial TT, meaningless to the podium contenders, but good press fodder for the fans.

Americans will identify McCain with the war. But he was a war hero..... That will be attractive to the voting base of the Democratic Party labor workers. McCain will be representive of the kind of man blue collor workers want to represent America with his POW attachment.

If McCain can bring some common sense to the Iraqi war to the American people, he will run away with the nomination. [The election will not be close] He is popular with conservative Republicans and he is popular with labor party workers. Both groups are the biggest voting blocks in America in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

I expect very little out of McCain until later in the campaign. Money will not be an issue. His warchest is full and he will have the support of the conservatives.

If McCain runs, Edwars run, I expect voters over 35 to be pro-McCain no matter what their political affliation is. He will be able to handle the Consevavtive Christians, business leaders, and the working man. The farmers like him, and he will swing many votes from the western states.
Edwards against McCain will get the students vote[ doesn't matter], the gays[doesn't matter], and part of the minority vote[may or may not matter]. The hard line liberals willl vote for Edwards.

Personally , I hope Edwards waits. I think he will make a fine President some day. but a loss in the next election and he will be washed up. And that would be a waste.

 

[Bro Deal]

Now...... The real issue is "How will the Democrats screw up 2008?" They were handed the election in 2004 and lost. They have to put together a Clinton-Edwards united front to win.

If they nominate Hillary that will be their screwup.

There are fundamental features on the American poltical landscape. The first is that the most charismatic candidate always wins. Voters tell newspapermen and pollsters they care about the issues, but the fact is that it has been more than 30 years since someone lacking in the charisma/looks department has won the presidency. Americans vote for presidents the same way they vote for candidates on reality TV. And on this point Hillary fails miserably. She has zero charisma. She comes across as pedantic and condescending. Her political message seems like it is written by Bill Clinton's old staff, but she does not have the personality to carry it off. She just is not a likable person, and her phoniness makes delivering political points like swimming up river.

A second feature is that people with records have an extremely difficult time winning the nomination. George H. Bush is the only non-governer to win the presidency in the last 30+ years, and Bush did not have much of a record. He was ostracized by the Reagan White House and had spent his previous years in bureaucratic jobs, like director of the CIA. He did not have much of a record to attack. Again Hillary fails miserably. She will have to deal with all the baggage of the Clinton presidency, her miraculous transition from left wing extremist to middle of the roader, and a long history of scandal. People start out with political capital and it dissipates with each scandal and bad decision. Hillary does have much, if any, to start out with.

The only thing she really has going for her is money. That is a third feature of the American presidential system. Whoever has the most money has a huge advantage in the primaries. Whether this will outweigh the other two features is hard to say.

One spectre that will always haunt Hillary's primary campaign is the question of whether she is electable. We saw in the last election how Dean's candidacy fell apart when the Dems became convinced he could not win. The wheels just fell off the wagon and Kerry vaulted into the lead, almost by default.

Another ghost that will trail her run is the battle for independent voters. The hardcore Dems would elect her in a second, but the race is won by carrying the middle one third of the electorate. It was this middle third that rejected Gore, in large part because the Clinton presidency was like an albatross around his neck, and elected a moron like Dubya. Dubya ran as an anti-Clinton and it worked wonders. That did not work out as expected but I think it is a bit much to expect the same voters to zig zag right back into the arms of what they ran away from eight years ago.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary then they will be throwing away a huge opportunity. Ever since the Great Society, the Republicans have painted the Democrats as tax and spenders. Dubya's gross fiscal irresponsibility rips the heart out of that argument. They need to take advantage that, and you don't do that by nominating someone who still thinks like Ted Kennedy. Dubya has also marginalized a several of the traditional bases of the Republican party. He is a religious zealot, and it has just plain creeped a lot of people out. His assault on civil rights has ****** off the libertarian wing of the party. His budget excesses have ****** of the fiscal conservatives. When the scope of the fraud that has gone on in the housing bubble becomes apparent, there goes the law and order crowd. The politcal landscape is ripe for a large scale tilt that could last for a couple of decades, but Hillary is definitely not the person to lead the revolution.

The Democrats need to nominate someone who is charismatic, articulate, decent looking, and solidly in the political center. Hillary fails on all counts. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.

 

[Bro Deal]

Americans will identify McCain with the war. But he was a war hero..... That will be attractive to the voting base of the Democratic Party labor workers. McCain will be representive of the kind of man blue collor workers want to represent America with his POW attachment.

If McCain can bring some common sense to the Iraqi war to the American people, he will run away with the nomination. [The election will not be close] He is popular with conservative Republicans and he is popular with labor party workers. Both groups are the biggest voting blocks in America in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

I disagree. McCain is dead in the water. Aside from Bush and Cheney themselves, McCain is the biggest proponent of a war that continues to get more and more unpopular. While Bush wants to send 20,000 troops, McCain has long supported sending many times more. He has been in Lyndon Johnson mode for at least a year now. If McCain were in control we would have seen the same sort of escalation that destroyed the Johnson presidency and sucked the country further into Vietnam.

McCain's attractiveness to the voters was his independence. That is gone. He is now one of the major buttresses that is holding up the Bush regime. Meanwhile all his colleagues with further political aspirations are running away from Bush as fast as they can go. They refer to the Iraq war as the Bush war. The war is a disaster, and it is just going to get worse and worse. By the end of this year I expect it will be difficult to find a major Republican that will admit to supporting the war. It's like the saying, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." Unfortunately for McCain the war won't quite be an orphan; he will be the crazy uncle that is giving support to his nephew born into the Bush administration.

As it stands now, I think Chuck Hagel would thump McCain. He has positioned himself on the right side of the war.

 

[jhuskey]

If they nominate Hillary that will be their screwup.

There are fundamental features on the American poltical landscape. The first is that the most charismatic candidate always wins. Voters tell newspapermen and pollsters they care about the issues, but the fact is that it has been more than 30 years since someone lacking in the charisma/looks department has won the presidency. Americans vote for presidents the same way they vote for candidates on reality TV. And on this point Hillary fails miserably. She has zero charisma. She comes across as pedantic and condescending. Her political message seems like it is written by Bill Clinton's old staff, but she does not have the personality to carry it off. She just is not a likable person, and her phoniness makes delivering political points like swimming up river.

A second feature is that people with records have an extremely difficult time winning the nomination. George H. Bush is the only non-governer to win the presidency in the last 30+ years, and Bush did not have much of a record. He was ostracized by the Reagan White House and had spent his previous years in bureaucratic jobs, like director of the CIA. He did not have much of a record to attack. Again Hillary fails miserably. She will have to deal with all the baggage of the Clinton presidency, her miraculous transition from left wing extremist to middle of the roader, and a long history of scandal. People start out with political capital and it dissipates with each scandal and bad decision. Hillary does have much, if any, to start out with.

The only thing she really has going for her is money. That is a third feature of the American presidential system. Whoever has the most money has a huge advantage in the primaries. Whether this will outweigh the other two features is hard to say.

One spectre that will always haunt Hillary's primary campaign is the question of whether she is electable. We saw in the last election how Dean's candidacy fell apart when the Dems became convinced he could not win. The wheels just fell off the wagon and Kerry vaulted into the lead, almost by default.

Another ghost that will trail her run is the battle for independent voters. The hardcore Dems would elect her in a second, but the race is won by carrying the middle one third of the electorate. It was this middle third that rejected Gore, in large part because the Clinton presidency was like an albatross around his neck, and elected a moron like Dubya. Dubya ran as an anti-Clinton and it worked wonders. That did not work out as expected but I think it is a bit much to expect the same voters to zig zag right back into the arms of what they ran away from eight years ago.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary then they will be throwing away a huge opportunity. Ever since the Great Society, the Republicans have painted the Democrats as tax and spenders. Dubya's gross fiscal irresponsibility rips the heart out of that argument. They need to take advantage that, and you don't do that by nominating someone who still thinks like Ted Kennedy. Dubya has also marginalized a several of the traditional bases of the Republican party. He is a religious zealot, and it has just plain creeped a lot of people out. His assault on civil rights has ****** off the libertarian wing of the party. His budget excesses have ****** of the fiscal conservatives. When the scope of the fraud that has gone on in the housing bubble becomes apparent, there goes the law and order crowd. The politcal landscape is ripe for a large scale tilt that could last for a couple of decades, but Hillary is definitely not the person to lead the revolution.

The Democrats need to nominate someone who is charismatic, articulate, decent looking, and solidly in the political center. Hillary fails on all counts. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.

I tend to agree with you on this analogy with one exception that she has a couple of things going for her and one is recognition.
Candidates like Obama are unknown but she does not have the camera appeal the Bill did.
As far as DS's comment about some leaving the country,that is more the comment style of extreme liberals like Rosie O'Donnel and a few others that failed to follow through and leave when Bush was elected,too bad. I hate celebrities involved in politics.
All the hopefuls should look at mistakes made in the past like Kerry who peaked too soon.
He should have maintained a low profile a while longer and kept his wife at home.
Hillary "Rodam",yeah that bugs too, will pull a lot of minority votes if nominated and I am not including females. I don't believe they are ready for a sex change in the White House as yet.
Hmmmh, I bet that thier are a bunch of writers just slobbering to use that phrase if she were elected.
"Sex change in the White House". Remember you heard it here first.
My guess is that Her and Obama are tactics being used by the Dem's to scare conservatives into voting for whoever they are really gromming for the job, maybe Edwards.

 

[wolfix]

An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.

Obama...... I don't think he even going to be considered..

I never said that Hillary would get Republican votes..... A Republican would never vote Democratic. Elections are won when the Republicans pull votes from the Democrats......
And ..... After that interview of her the other day after my 1st post, I don't see her winning any election with Health Care Reform."

Edwards is electable..... But never with Obama,. There is nothing that appeals to the blue collar worker about Obama. And they are the Democratic voters that matter. Right now he is in the news because he is an oddity......

 

[Bro Deal]

Edwards is electable..... But never with Obama,. There is nothing that appeals to the blue collar worker about Obama. And they are the Democratic voters that matter. Right now he is in the news because he is an oddity......

Perhaps, but he is much more charismatic than Hillary could ever hope to be. It will be interesting to see how the whole race issue plays out. My gut thought is that a large part of the country is more open to a black president than a woman president--at least with someone like Hillary who snaked her way into her position--but you never know. People say one thing but that does not mean they will actually act that way in the privacy of the voting booth.

If Edwards were to bolster his position with someone like Webb, who just earned big points with his rebuttal to the State of Denial, he might do nicely. But do you really want two Southerners on the ticket. It worked for Clinton/Gore, but Gore was a fake Southerner.

The Republicans are the ones that need to worry. Anyone who is remotely identified with Bush is going to get clobbered. There are lots of Republican governers to choose from, though.

 

[Bro Deal]

I tend to agree with you on this analogy with one exception that she has a couple of things going for her and one is recognition.

That is true, but it cuts both ways. If what you are known for is not palatable to the voters then it's a big downside. Nominating Hillary would take ammunition away from the Democrats. The Republicans only took 12 years to turn the Hill into a morass of corruption. I think that gives the Dems a good issue to hammer the Repubs with, but Hillary would eliminate the possibility of using that tactic. As soon as she brought anything up, the Repubs will throw it back in her face. How will she attack the Repubs' ethics when they can bring up her $100K bribe from Tyson chicken that was disguised as profits from futures trading, the last minute pardons of criminals on the run, and the shopping list she and Bill passed around when they needed to furnish their place in New York?

 

[wolfix]

I think the Clinton years showed us that Americans expect corruption out of the officials. Hillary will weather any of that storm..... Plus, the Democratic machine owes her.

An interesting point..... there was a poll back aways, that might not be relevant now....that states women were the ones who had a problem with Hillary. Many women were upset she didn't kick Bill out...... Men didn't object to her.......

A black president won't fly ...... No matter how talented he is..... And Obama has nothing to brag about as far as talent goes. The only ones who are interested in Obama at this point is the liberal Democrats. Right now the country is just sitting back and watching the show. The thing Obama did do was to make Hillary announce her intentions far earlier then she wanted to......

After Hillary's talk of "health care" the other day, I fully expect Edwards to be nominated...... But the Democrats nominated Kerry, so who knows. That is what I have always said about the past 5-7 elections..The Democratic committee have no idea who they represent. They have allowed the fringe groups { Abortion rights, anti-gun lobby & gays] to push their agenda on the front burner when it is the Democratic blue collar worker who makes up the majority of Democratic voters. The average blue collar worker does not consider abortion to be a major issue. They do not want to be associated with "gay pride." And most of them enjoy owning a gun......
The Democrats have to get back to economic issues....... They need to discuss "China." They need to discuss "minimum wage," [which they are]..... They need to attack Bush on the illegal immigration issue....
They simply need to become the people's party...... Not the "special needs party."
And ...they are walking a fine line attacking the war...... The politicians have to be careful not to let the voters think they are "against the troops."' It is the average Democrat driving around with those yellow ribbons on their car that states " I support the troops."
The Democrats need to bring the election back to domestic problems.

 

[wolfix]

That is true, but it cuts both ways. If what you are known for is not palatable to the voters then it's a big downside. Nominating Hillary would take ammunition away from the Democrats. The Republicans only took 12 years to turn the Hill into a morass of corruption. I think that gives the Dems a good issue to hammer the Repubs with, but Hillary would eliminate the possibility of using that tactic. As soon as she brought anything up, the Repubs will throw it back in her face. How will she attack the Repubs' ethics when they can bring up her $100K bribe from Tyson chicken that was disguised as profits from futures trading, the last minute pardons of criminals on the run, and the shopping list she and Bill passed around when they needed to furnish their place in New York?

But she will appeal to the "anti-drug" faction in America...... because we all know "Bill did not inhale."

 

[RobertCZ]

It will be interesting to see how the whole race issue plays out.

Actually the average African American can not identify with Obama. His story is not one of overcoming odds. He was always went to good schools, lived in nice nieghborhoods, lived abroad, stable family, etc. For the average African American they have very little if anything in common. Plus the fact that his mother is caucasion also does not help minorities identify with him. While the press will mention his racial background I really do not think it will have any major effect on overall result.

Now for the Republican nomination we have a couple big names floating around, McCain, Rudy, Pataki, Jeb Bush. For the nomination just like with the Democrats the "Kingmakers" want a cannidate to the right. Unfortunately McCain, Rudy and Pataki are much more center that the Republican party would like. Especially for the single issue voters in the party. (i.e. Gun control, Abortion) Jeb is more to the right than those mentioned above but he I don't think he will run. Personally I think he would be a great VP. Plus he can deliver FL in the Election.

A ticket like Rudy/Jeb would probably be a hard one to beat. They would deliver NY, FL and probably take a few other marginal states due to Rudy's more central idealogy plus everyone remembers him during 9/11 one cool cumcumber under presure. Arnie would help them in CA. (I do not think they would win the state but they would cause the Dem to spend alot of money in California that could be used in more realistic battground states.)

As for the election the Democrats have a problem because to get elected you need to win the Electorial Points. Which is based how the majority votes in that state. (It is a little more complicated than that but I will not get into that.) If you look at the last election it is pretty clear that the Dems. have only a few very populous states. (NY, CA, MI, IL. In the 2004 election CA(55), NY(31), IL(21) and MI(17) accounted for 49% of the Dems. electoral votes.124 of the 252 Electoral Votes they recieved(you need 270 to win)) So if they lose one of these states they are in big trouble because that means they would have to win several smaller midwest/southern states which is not likely. Historically the Democrats have done very well the West Coast, New England, the South (Pre-Reagan era. But Southern Democrats tend to be much more conservative than their Northern counterparts.) But in recent elections they have lost their grrip on the south. Gore did not even win his home state in 2000 rare in presidential elections. Even Mondale won his state against Reagan in 1984.

I hope this election brings more central canidates but I fear it will be a battle of Idealogues.

 

[Wurm]

Most Dems do not like Hillary b/c she's seen as a pandering jack-ass. She doesn't have core Progressive values that go past being yet another corporate shill. Even Edwards said last night on Olberman that she hasn't admitted her vote for the Iraq invasion was wrong, and her subsequent cheerleading for the War on Terra. Basically, she's been a female Lieberman. Her health care scheme in the early 90's was an attempted handout to the insurance industry and a slap in the face to unions.

But, the mass media will continue to shove her down our throats, hoping that the constant exposure will change minds.

 

[Bro Deal]

Actually the average African American can not identify with Obama....

The nice thing about Obama is that he is not running as the black candidate. Jesse Jackson always ran as a special interest candidate, and people like Al Sharpton just used the federal matching funds and their party's money to live high on the hog for the duration of the election. There was never any chance they could get a significant number of white voters. Obama is running as just another candidate without concentration on race. I think that is a huge step forward.

Jeb Bush's presidential hopes need to be officially round filed. His brother has killed his chances. It is unfair since he appears to be much smarter than his brother and a much more deft politician, but I do not see independents willing to risk Dubya II. Dubya's problems are only beginning. He seems depressed now but wait until the Democrats start investigating the outright robbery that has gone on during Iraq's reconstruction. It takes political skill to speak out against a war and not get tarred with being soft on defense and security, but it takes no skill to go after war profiteers, especially when the war has been a complete **** up. There is no downside. Not only will it play to the Dems' base, it will play well with the independents and fiscal conservatives. If Jeb ever runs it would have to be long after 2008 and he has not got that kind of time.

I think McCain has played out his welcome. He was good at using what I think of as the Lieberman ploy. When Clinton was impeached, Lieberman used his conscience of the Senate schtick to get media exposure, telling everyone how troubled he was about the president's acts and intimating he might support removal, but when the time came he voted the party line. McCain has used his status as a fringe Repub the same way. His problem is that he is no longer the revolutionary fighting The Man. He is The Man. With his support for the war, he not only sounds like **** Cheney, he looks like him.

As for Rudy, I cannot put my finger on it but he seems like a lightweight to me. I think of him as a regional candidate who will be unable to parlay that into nationwide support. Pataki might be a good V.P. If he could deliver NY and the candidate at the top of the ticket could deliver the South then you have a hard to beat combination.

I think the conclusion of the electoral mathematics you pointed out is that the Dems cannot afford to put up a left wing nominee. They have to have someone near to the center; and back to the original topic, I don't see Hillary as being in that position.

 

[Bro Deal]

That is what I have always said about the past 5-7 elections..The Democratic committee have no idea who they represent. They have allowed the fringe groups { Abortion rights, anti-gun lobby & gays] to push their agenda on the front burner when it is the Democratic blue collar worker who makes up the majority of Democratic voters. The average blue collar worker does not consider abortion to be a major issue. They do not want to be associated with "gay pride." And most of them enjoy owning a gun......

The interesting thing is that the Repubs now have the exact opposite problem. They have moved steadily away from their usual partnership of Wallstreeters, blue bloods, libertarian leaning reactionaries, and moral majority types to become a party of religious nutters. The inclusive ship that ferried Reagan to power has been hit by the iceberg of Bush's inflexibility. Judging by the last election the boat is taking on water and the Repubs had better start plugging the leaks.

 

[limerickman]

As and outsider and for what it's worth - I think that the USA needs someone who can unite, rather than divide, the country.
Right now, the US is polarised - like no other (modern) time.

I think this Bush administration has told untold harm to the country.
Economically, I predict that whatever administration comes in will be left with a huge, massive economic problem.
Current budget deficits/trade deficits/balance of payments deficits exist now.
Between 2009-2015, moritoriums given to Bush under Acts passed in the early 2002 will ensure that these positions crumble.
$344 billion in tax cuts is due to mature in 2011 for example.
Sheer recklessness. How is the country meant to fund this in three years time?
Compounded by the Iraq expenditure - Americans will be left with a domestic fiscal basketcase of an economy.

In terms of foreign affairs - Bush's policies have polarised internal US politics also to Vietnam levels.
The State of the Union address showed just how isolated Bush is - lukewarm acknowledgement from his audience spoke volumes.


So, in 2009, America will need to have a leader who can bring together the country.
Personally, I think Hilary Clinton is a very smart, accomplished person.
From what i read she has done a great job in NY - her hard work and her ability has been recognised.
However, she is viewed by her opponents as a polarising figure (not to the same degree as Bush).
Therefore I don't think that she will be given the opportunity to lead the USA.

McCain's support of Bush throughout Iraq may make him unpalatable.

John Edwards seems to be a bright guy - but I don't know enough about him to comment either way.

Suffice to say - whoever gets the job, they will have been placed in an invidious position by the current incumbents policies.

 

[Wurm]

Personally, I think Hilary Clinton is a very smart, accomplished person.
From what i read she has done a great job in NY - her hard work and her ability has been recognised.
However, she is viewed by her opponents as a polarising figure (not to the same degree as Bush).
Therefore I don't think that she will be given the opportunity to lead the USA.

Lim, if you lived in NY as I do, you might not see things that way. I guess it depends on where/who you're getting your info from.

The poll I saw last night from Iowa of Dem contenders had Edwards at 23%, with Obama 13%, Vilsack & Clinton both at 12%. That tells me the neo-liberal, faux-conservative Clinton is not getting much traction even in a somewhat conservative place like Iowa. Maybe she should stop talking in platitudes.

My grandfather used to say, "You don't get much from straddling the fence but a sore backside."

 

[Aussie Steve]

In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you are on the electoral role, you must vote or you get a fine. We get a lot of informal voting where people just dont care, fill the ballot cards incorrectly, etc but at least they turn up to vote.
In the USA, I have been led to believe voting is optional, and apparently you have a turn-out of less than 50%? so if Hilary C gets voted in, you only have yourselves to blame.

 

[wolfix]

In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you are on the electoral role, you must vote or you get a fine. We get a lot of informal voting where people just dont care, fill the ballot cards incorrectly, etc but at least they turn up to vote.
In the USA, I have been led to believe voting is optional, and apparently you have a turn-out of less than 50%? so if Hilary C gets voted in, you only have yourselves to blame.

The subject you brought up is one of the reasons we get so little middle of the roads canidates elected. We have the believers on the far right and we have the believers on the far left. They take this seriously....... And that is the type of canidate we end up with. A canidate that appeals to the extremists of either side.....
We have lost faith in the type of person that represents us. I believe the loss of faith in elected officials began with Johnson and then the Watergate scandal confirmed it. It's been down hill since. Any country that elects Arnie and Jessie Ventura, and keeps Ted Kennedy in office deserves what it gets. Maybe Arnie is trying though... I'm not sure what he stands for, but he seems to be working the office.

 

[Bro Deal]

In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you are on the electoral role, you must vote or you get a fine.

Whoa, and I thought the U.S. had a bad democratic system. One thing we don't need is forcing people to vote. I think it was George Carlin who once said, "Think about how dumb the average American is then realize that half of them are dumber than that."

How much is the fine?

 

[thebirdman]

Whoa, and I thought the U.S. had a bad democratic system. One thing we don't need is forcing people to vote. I think it was George Carlin who once said, "Think about how dumb the average American is then realize that half of them are dumber than that."

How much is the fine?

Before the last election it use to be $20.00, but I think it has now gone up to $50.00 or $100.00. That is unless you have a good excuse that the Electoral Office accepts.

As for informal votes, I have been a party scrutineer at several election counts and I can not remember any of our boothes being higher than 5% and that was at the very devisive late 2001 'Post 9/11, One Nation, Tampa, Immigration, Children Overboard' election where we elected 'the devil we knew'.

We still use pencil and paper for our votes so we are 'unlikely' to have a Florida fiasco.

Don't worry we still seem to vote in leaders that more than half of the country think are '******'s' like you guys do. But we do know that at least 50%+1 of our fellow sheep voted the ruling party in.

We vote in Laywers, Ancesteral Polititians (Daddy was a Politician) and Political Party Hacks, oh and I forgot... Journalists and Peter Garrett(a pop vocalist with unco-ordinated movements)

The last time we had, possibly, a ordinary bloke as a Prime Minster, was a train driver. But that was during WWII and he was still a Union Organiser.

You guys in the US are lucky your Presidents have a maximum of 2 terms. Howard has been Prime Minister for nearly 11 years and if the Labor Party or some other minor party don't get their acts together he could see out 20 years, if his health holds up(He is a very fit and healthy man, in his late 60s, and still does long power walks every morning before doing a long days work. It's funny seeing people 1/2 his age not being able to keep up with him.