I guess not many people would admit this: 8 years ago I was in favour of George Bush - I was irritated with Clinton and also thought America treated the old George Bush very badly by voting him out, and he deserved to see his son elected 8 years later. I believe many others shared my feeling, e.g., George Bush was given an easy time about his past behaviour, and reporters ignored rumours about his drug taking in college and went easy on his drinking days including a drunken driving arrest. (You need to remember things were different 8 years ago - now everyone is used to it all, and Obama can thank Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears for people's lack of interest in his drug taking during youth.)

Even now, I dont think going into Iraq was such a big mistake - the real mistake was in disbanding the defeated Iraqi army instead of getting the soldiers (who had all run away from the battlefield back home) to return to barracks and use them for garrison duties. That would not only have prevented the security breakdown (which in the beginning was merely criminal activities rather than anti american) and denied a supply of manpower to terrorism. The tax cuts were in themselves not that wrong either, but combined with Iraq it was a mistake. However, enough about the past.

For the 2008 election, I expect it to be McCain versus Hilary. It was bad luck that the unusually upright politician McCain was denied the nomination by Bush, so he deserved a new chance, while Hilary, whatever her personal shortcomings, put in enough effort into her political career and deserves something in the end. It would also be interesting to have a woman making a try for the office.

Why do I expect the US voters to go along with my thinking? We got serious international problems as well as an economic crisis on our hands, and in the end both parties will not feel comfortable with lightweights like Huckebee, Obama, Romney, Edwards. Rudy Juliani might be a heavy weight, but has too many skeletons in his closet. Even before the first primary, he already began to suffer from people knowing him better, and it can only get worse later.

That's all for now; I will add comments now and then as things proceed between now and November 2008..

added on 5/6/08

now that it is officially McCain versus Obama, I guess Obama has an edge; I was not convinced by his message, and still find it fake, but it seems to work with american voters

I also found McCain has not performed well since he was confirmed in having the delegate no. to win the nomination; I do not know whether he requires adversity to perform well, and once he is the front runner he becomes careless, which explains why he started well, went down and was given up for dead, came back, but now started to do poorly again; if that's the case, then I guess he could improve again

added on 2/10/08

choosing sarah palin gave mccain a temporary bounce but her poor interview performance has brought people back to ground; she is about to take part in the vice presidential debate, which would be crucial - mccain himself only managed a tied first debate, in effect he lost since he is supposed to be more experienced than obama

added on 7/1/08:

saw McCain on Meet the Press, a sunday talkshow on NBC with Tim Russert, who was very sharp, challenging the senator with various video clips showing his past statements; McCain aquitted himself well, despite the consistency problems the past words revealed, which he was able to successfully evade or explain away - he is after all a politician

added on 22/2/08:

the NYTimes article about his relationship with Vicki Iseman was a very poor effort; there is no concrete information at all - the one solid item about a staff member warning her to stay away from McCain basically showed SHE was exaggerating her connection with him hoping to benefit her lobbying business, and McCain may be truthful that he did not know about it and the aide did it on his own initiative

added on 23/4/08

hillary survives again by winning with 10% in the penn primary; dont you think the superdelegates and john edwards supporters would eventually decide that her efforts deserve a reward, and obama is too light weight to handle difficulties?

added on 1 may

the election is still 6 months away, but I am already totally sick of it, so instead of writing myself, I reprint this article from wall street journal

Where Were Obama's Friends?
May 1, 2008

It's tough being Everyman.

Way back when, before the angry and antic prophet Jeremiah rose to smite him, Barack Obama appeared before us as an open presidential vessel, into which many poured their political dreams.

Foremost were black Americans. Bill Clinton famously diminished the Obama candidacy during the South Carolina primary as just one more Jesse Jackson fling. But across the black community, support for this candidate clearly had deeper roots. Head to head against Hillary, he has been getting huge majorities of the black vote. This was their moment.

Upscale white voters signed on and were belittled as liberals exorcising white guilt. Maybe, but for many Obama was also the un-Bush and un-Hillary.

Independents worn down by 16 years of Red-Blue trench warfare bought the "change" promise. Obama sounded like he could pull it off. Indies like to dream.

Brand-name Democrats, such as various members of the Kennedy aristocracy, went over, calculating it might be easier to push the party forward with Obama's lightness of being than the Clintons' boxcars of baggage.

The periodic ideals of young America we know about.

Even as they watched Barack win, pundits and reporters were agog that a one-term, black-American senator from Illinois could have such an effect. This pickup-team coalition of idealists and pols, led by a virtual Luke Skywalker, was on the brink of pushing the Clinton empire over the cliff. It made the Clintons crazy.

This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.

No prominent black clergyman came forth to make even the simple point that Jeremiah Wright's notion of the "black church" is but one point on a spectrum of faith. Rev. Wright, now written off as a virtual nut case, got more support from black clergymen than did Obama.

Barack Obama was bleeding by Monday and needed cover. Where, when he could have used them, were Obama's oh-so-famous endorsers: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Oprah, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller, John Lewis, Toni Morrison, Roger Wilkins, Eric Holder, Robert Reich, Ted Sorenson, Alice Walker, David Wilhelm, Cornel West, Clifford Alexander, Donald McHenry, Patricia Wald, Newton Minow?

Where were all the big-city mayors who went over to the Obama camp: Chicago's Richard Daley, Cleveland's Frank Reynolds, Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Washington's Adrian Fenty, Newark's Cory Booker, Baltimore's Sheila Dixon?

It isn't hard for big names to get on talk TV to make a point. Any major op-ed page would have stopped the presses to print a statement of support from Ted Kennedy or such for the senator. None appeared. Call it profiles in gopher-holing.

Blogs and Web sites are overflowing with how this meltdown is largely of Barack Obama's own making. What difference does that make? He is not running for class president; he's running for the presidency of the United States. Even at the crudest level of political calculation and cowardice, there's a point in a presidential race when a candidate's supporters are all in. We passed that point weeks ago. It's him or her.

Analysts and historians will spend years sorting through the lessons of this most bizarre of all presidential campaigns. The Obama desertion points in a few directions.

The nature of modern media coverage and the length of the campaign (two years!) has made these presidential candidates truly larger than life; indeed, they've become almost cartoon-like. Their personas dwarf and overwhelm the parties to which they nominally belong.

As entities, the parties continue to recede. The Democratic superdelegates, created to represent the party's interests, look like deer frozen in the headlights of the two candidates' roaring tractor trailers.

As for the supersized candidates, what strikes one most about them is their "aloneness." They look so solitary. Indeed, it is possible that the old and honorable notion of "standing with" a candidate like Obama simply didn't occur to his famous supporters this week. Everyone has become used to watching celebrity stars and athletes take it in the neck on their own. Even someone running for the nation's presidency looks like just another personal crack-up.

What about the voters – the average Joes and Janes showing up in record numbers in formerly obscure primary states? It's wonderful to learn so much about the politics of Rhode Island, eastern Indiana or swaths of central Pennsylvania, and the candidates themselves are pressing more retail political flesh than ever. The result, though, is pretty clinical – data flowing into exit-poll categories whose fluctuating post-primary percentages are somehow more exciting than, well, real people.

The list is long this week of supporters who let Barack Obama hang out to dry. More than a few were last seen running out on Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the solution here is for the two soloists to meet, flip a coin, and spend the next six months as a pair running against John McCain. It looks like they're the only friends they've got.

added on 25/5/08

I was amazed that Hillary said "I am staying in the race because candidates could get assassinated". That may be the truth, but you dont go around saying so in public; surprising how amateurish she and Bill has been in this campaign, and how slick the Obama organization has been. 

McCain had some problems too, but what his campaign will do against the official Dem opponent is still unknown.

super tuesday is here

now we have a second super tuesday, and Hillary wins the two big states, Ohio and Texas, by convincing margins; so we also have a second New Hampshire; she survives again - in fact, I believe the Obama bubble is about to start to leak and it is downhill from here

below is from the earlier super tuesday:-

mccain wins as I expected; a mccain-huchebee combination would be the most electable ticket the republicans can hope to field

hillary does better than obama in the bigger states though winning fewer states so survives though badly bruised

one big loser tonight is the Kennedy clan: Hillary won massechusettes despite them; the other are the right wing pundits like Rush Limburgh: they failed to stop McCain - the anti McCain voters did not vote for Romney as the pundits asked, but went to Huckebee; finally the pollsters: Hillary is doing well california whereas latest poll has her 13% below Obama

the question is now

1. now that hillary survived, would party stalwarts stick with clinton dynasty, or flirt with new hope in case obama has better chance against mccain-huckebee?

2. would conservatives go through with the threat to sit out the general election, or support 3rd party?

Surprise in New Hampshire 

OBAMA 36; CLINTON 36; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4...

MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 6; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

hehheh..I was right about Hillary turning the table on Obama. 

One factor: the New Hampshire independents have pro and anti Clinton parts; the pro have all gone to vote for her, thinking she needs help, while the anti have already written her off as unimportant, and so decided to go to the other party and vote for McCain instead.

Some comments on the important candidate:

Republicans: except for Huckebee, they cannot really break with George Bush's policies as they do not dare to lose mainstream party supporters; but among them, McCain was Bush's opponent 8 years ago so can break off most easily, yet he has mostly supported Bush policies. This is why he has the least problem with disillusioned republicans, and eventually the party establishment, much as they dislike him, will find him the best bet. He also gives the best personal impression, that you may not agree with him but at least his views are his own, and he at least is able to listen to different opinions (again, contrast to Bush) Poor Romney (and his father was also an early rising candidate who then collapsed); just too much of a business executive to inspire people to follow in a mass movement. 

Democrats: Obama gives a sunny, optimistic message, much easier on the ear than Clinton's peevish "I am better; I am more entitled to be president" message, but it looks like fairy tale to me (Bill Clinton was already using this line of attack); I dont think it would last the distance, and the party establishment would eventually be able to pull Hillary through. Like George Bush, Obama's lack of substance and personal experience would make him vulnerable to factions and opinions when handling difficult situations. There is also the issue of how successfully he can put together decision making structures during administration, despite his success in putting together a popularity contest structure.

-------------------- 

 an amusing comment

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-noah13jan13,0,7499808.story?coll=la-opinion-center