Richard--

Unfortunately you don't seem to read very carefully. I never said the Economist loved Blair. What I clearly said is that they felt he blew the chance he had to make a difference in the UK--and the world-- by signing on to Bush's war, and thereby squandering the vast majority of his political capital--for an ill-advised and even worse- conducted war. The adjective "criminal" was mine, not theirs.


"The suggestion it was the Labour party that was confrontational could only be made by somebody who was not here".

Fine.

Whereas you, who as far as I know are not a US citizen and do not reside in the US--(correct me if I'm wrong--I'm sure you will)---are eminently qualified to tell us all about the current US political situation. ( I can't tell you how grateful we are for your objective reporting and incisive observations. I don't know how we'd figure out how our political system works, and how we should evaluate the candidates if you didn't share your unparalleled wisdom.)

So it's not a 2-way street. I wonder why.

I'll be glad to refrain from commenting on the UK political scene if you will do the same regarding the 2008 US presidential campaign. Why do I think the chances you will do so are not good ( to say the least?)

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the accomplishments of the Labour party in the period 1979-1997--that is, before compromise became an option, under Blair.

Perhaps you and your fellow ivory-tower dwellers would do well to reflect on a guiding principle for some over here: "Politics is the art of the possible".

Obama has realized this. It doesn't seem likely that you ever will.