There have absolutely been some decent candidates during the past 15 years, they just don't get far. The obvious conclusion is that a substantial percentage of the electorate has no interest in quality candidates. Instead, they seem to prefer 'one of their own'.

I thought it would clear it up nicely -- oh well....

The electorate is easily manipulated by the most clever politician with sufficient funds.

In the present case, the "clever" part belongs to Karl Rove.........the money belongs to the RNC and GWB. It's an unbeatable combination.

The qualifications of the candidate are largely irrelevant. Just compare John McCain to GWB..........is it not quite obvious who is more qualified and knowledgeable?

OK -- I'll buy it, but I don't think that explains Clinton. I still think the 'one of their own' thing is (almost shamefully) a powerful force. That goes a long way toward explaining Clinton, GW, Marion Barry -- it's a pretty long list...

It's your paragraph, so only you can answer that question.

Two things that I find more annoying than people who beat dead horses:

1. People who interrupt conversations (whether in person or on an internet forum) with comments that the people engaging in the conversation are repeating themselves or going around in circles. Shouldn't the people having the conversation be the ones to decide whether it will continue?

2. People who assume that criticism of Bush arises from hatred of Bush.

No, Clinton is explained in a different fashion. There was no Karl Rove to run the "clever" show. Clinton is an excellent speaker and has charisma with all audiences. Add the fact that GB had recently violated his pledge not to raise taxes and the outcome was predictable.

Clinton definitely comes across as "one of their own" even though he's an Oxford graduate.

that was an equal opportunity paragraph, brought to you by the fine folks at Mote Removal Inc.

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

I don't think that Rove and buckets of money made Dubyah unbeatable. I think it is a combination of the way Democrats choose their candidates and the lack of simple, substantive platform. For example, Bill Clinton won with less money and (IMO) a lesser candidate against Bush I.

Clinton had a clear message that he clearly articulated. It resonated with an awful lot of folks. In contrast, Bush I never in his public life ever clearly articulated a firm belief in anything. He had to adopt a platform that he clearly didn't believe in and that dissonance was a burden that he never overcame.

Truman won.

Kennedy won.

We can also name a fairly large number of wealthy and/or well-bankrolled candidates in both parties who lost elections.

Bot

You are comparing two different elections. A real test would be whether GWB and Karl could beat Clinton. Now you have quite a bit of money and a very clever manipulator against an excellent speaker who comes across well to the public. Only in such a contest would your theory be tested.

If you doubt Rove and buckets of money, kindly explain GWB's trouncing of John McCain in the primaires. The message of John McCain was accurate and compelling. Unfortunately, it was no match for the mud-slinging campaign of Karl and company.

Money and a well run and precisely targeted campaign is what wins elections.

Yeah, what was the clear platform that came from the GW camp, other than it being OK to slur a decent man's family in the worst way possible while making sure that "god" was every fifth word that fell out of his mouth?

I liked John McCain and he was my first choice back in the 2000 primarys. A candidate needs to have a strong message and define where they stand on all issues. Also I don't want someone who flips positions if the latest pole results change.

Thats the part I really don't like about Hillary Clinton, as she gears up to run in 08. She won't answer any questons. Look at what she said about fixing the border problem. Nothing new same old crap that hasn't worked for the past 30 years.

We need some backbone in office.

__________________
2006 CL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2026 Genesis GV70
2007 Tiara 3200

It's awful hard to compare one election to itself, but I think I understand your point.

But speaking in hypothetical terms, I think Bill Clinton is a far better political tactician than Rove. Both of them win through 'triangulation' but Clinton has the overwhelming benefit of tremendous stage presence. And since he is his own mouthpiece I think he would have beaten any Republican in 1996 except Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln. Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln were all brilliant tacticians and also believed their own words and had excellent theatricality.

Of them all, I think Teddy Roosevelt was the second or perhaps third best president we've ever had.

Bot

I believe we are comparing apples and oranges.

Clinton, as a candidate, is a far better tactician than just about any other candidate that comes to mind.

However, Rove, as the man behind the scenes, can, effectively, get a chimpanzee elected. His candidate has absolutely no stage presence, no compelling ideas and garners automatic support strictly from the religious right. It's up to Rove to fill in the gaps. I believe, with the limited capabilites of the candidate, that Rove is a more successful tactician than Clinton. But, I'd really need to see the two of them head to head for confirmation.

This was the previously referenced hypothetical election between GWB and Clinton. It would certainly be interesting......to say the least.

The dream match: Marciano vs Ali.

B

.......who gets Rove??