Harry, to that also add that both men wanted to change their party and
modernize it, and, historically, they did, at least wrestling the office
away from entrenched leadership. Some say the pendulum swings anyway, and
some say it is helped a bit.
Karen
Harry wrote: Keith,
I suspect the reason why Blair and Clinton got on so well is because they
each had policies keyed to the latest opinion poll.
Harry
___________________
Keith wrote:
>Karen,
>
>At 06:51 29/08/02 -0700, you wrote:
><<<<
>AHA! Another contrarian opinion about the Iraq war and Tony Blair,
>originating from Bath, England!!! And there is a quote in Latin! Cheers!
>Karen
> >>>>
>
>What a wonderful lot we are in Bath! I've heard of Geoffrey Wheatcroft,
>though I haven't met him. I'll follow with his whole NYT article ('cos it
>isn't very long).
>
>But Wheatcroft is quite right. Tony Blair is rarely able to deliver what he
>promises. He agrees with "either" when "or" is away -- and vice versa.
>He's very telegenic and that's what got him to where he is. He protects
>himself with a small loyal band of spin doctors, and the spin changes from
>month to month according to the weather.
>
>He certainly won't be able to lay on UK support for Bush's policy -- about
>70-80% of the population are dead against it -- and, what's more, almost
>100% of the "chattering classes".
>
>Keith
>
><<<<
>AN UNCERTAIN ALLY ON IRAQ
>
>By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
