Here's my summary of this one:
> For four years George Bush was unchallenged if unpopular. Then he was re-elected in November 2004, since which date his ascendancy has collapsed - with a 'seamless calendar' of difficulties: Iraq, Katrina, the Supreme Court vacancies etc, and bad approval ratings. So you have a lame duck president, and the Republicans could lose control of Congress in November 2006. And then there's also November 2008 when Bush's successor will be chosen. However, best not to speak too soon. The Democrats may not recapture Congress, and the election of Hillary Clinton is far from certain. In any event, even if it's a relief to have a President Bush whose leadership is less effective than before, is it so much better to have one whose leadership is ineffective? <
The world was waiting for a piece of incisive analysis like that.