A good commentary.

Despite losing the midterms the Republican's are attempting to preempt the Democrats decision making (January 2007 onwards) in congress regarding Iraq. Interesting that the US military (independently?) have announced the option of sending more troops to Iraq (temporarily, in theory, of course). The Baker's Iraq Study Group may well highlight the same option next month.

This appears to be setting the bar high so that any milder option pushed by the Democrats is more likely to be the status quo.

The more troops option will also divide the Democrats, as some, like Kerry have actually advocated more troops.

On possible candidates for President in the 2008 elections its an unlikely mix, particularly on the Democrat side (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama). The US electorate appear to be very conservative - always choicing alpha male whites - taking more than a century to even choose a Catholic. Hillary has spouse skeletons and Obama? - too new and with a weird name (close to Osama) for a frequently alarmed US electorate. I think the Democrats might play it safe in the end and field a WASP male.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

I suppose it is a measure of the Realist approach to foreign affairs that Dr O’Connor takes the line he does, probably rightly.
I suppose also it is naïve to think that popular concern with humanity, with international law would feature, though claims to God like purity and concern for collaterals are often made. Thanks and praises to God made not infrequently from increasingly popular new religious groups.
War was illegal? My reading is yes the media’s; depends on the lawyer and degree of justification as getting rid of a dictator. Untested in a court of law.
A dictator who happened to be in a desired position serving as useful excuse others, choose which you like there are many, some with Western support, can be ignored or referred to the U.N.
That is the body set up to in theory prevent war and bring some measure of humanity to the world. That is the body derided as ineffective by our leaders many of whom have deliberately undermined its activities rather then seek to improve.Whose resolutions vetoed for perceived national value.
Human Nature, realist foreign affairs, national concerns, Herman Goering’s dictum yet again!
The world will move on with the American century still to the fore though operating more clandestinely than previously, the meida now out of the loop in this area.. The National Security Strategy of Bush still on the table. Profit imperatives of the multinationals made more urgent as the finiteness of resources becomes apparent to the unheeding eyes. Fear still abroad and useful, terrorism needs tweaking when the electorate becomes quiescent but Newsworthy items moulded round these tools still serves.
Naïve to think it worth pushing for Law international Law as aid to control of human behaviour. Nationally it works, fear of my neighbours intentions muted at least by police patrol.
An international patrol with other nationalities of varying colour and social ways?
My God next I will be wanting international meets that really do concern themselves with others not their nation, corporation or pride.
Morality on public display as actuality not rhetoric?
Oh dear!

A white male such as.... gore? Now there'd be some interesting politics... but no less interesting than the first black or first female president.
At least the democrats are experimenting I suppose... and American voters haven't really had the option of choosing anything other than a white male. I agree there will be a scare factor to overcome, though the novelty/curiosity favour, coupled with additional votes garnered from women or racial minorities who identify with their candidate, may prove to be an asset. Then again, it could fail miserably... they're in unfamiliar territory here.
These polls will be more interesting than most.

Actually, I'm somewhat optimistic about the next US elections. Whoever wins, their role will be reasonably defined.
Even a republican victory will be an improvement over the current administration, as at least McCain has proven a little more progressive on foreign policy.
What's more, he has the experience to back up his views.

My money's on a narrow win for McCain, over Clinton. It's too soon for Obama to step in to the role, though perhaps next time. I'd like to see the democrats win, but despite the landslide mid-terms, I still see them as the underdogs.

Howard ought to cement his sycophancy with an endorsement of McCain the moment he gets the chance. With any luck the favour will be returned.

Then we can simply formalise the arrangement and become part of the US.

McCain/Rice versus Gore/Richardson is my bet. I just came back from the US and every Democrat friend of mine thinks that Hillary will get the nomination but she cannot win...what is that telling you about the chances of Hillary getting it or of Hillary even deciding to run. The big problem for the Democrats is that the big winners from the mid-terms were conservative Democrats in places like Indiana, Texas and North Carolina but the base of the Party supports losers like the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.

there is no obvious democrat candidate, perhaps because no one is sure they want to deal with the middle east in it's present state.

a year or two from now, the dems will have some popular laws and policies established by congress and can run on them, without having to convince anyone they can 'fix' the middle east. the middle east will simply be america's chernobyl- "the republican disaster".

more important from an australian view is that howard has not visibly improved our position in the world, by tacking his nose on dubya's bum. the (thousand plus page) 'freetrade agreement' is anything but free, and seems to benefit the usa at our expense. protecting the iraq wheat contract with a few hundred volunteer gunmen in the 'coalition of the willing' might have been of some electoral benefit to the national party, but the stink of corruption and a few brave whistle blowers has turned that contract into a debit in local politics.

still, the libnats have several assets for the coming election. there's always the willingness of the electorate to be hoodwinked, and this time the vast incompetence of any 'opposition party' is particularly visible.

as long as beasley is the visible face of labor, and the american government is in bypartisan/waiting mode, his 'pilot fish' gamble will succeed, regardless of stumbles and scandals. after all, people in what they call "parliamentary democracy" have no real choices in their power. in the end, they can only say:"better the devil we know"