I agree with this analysis, except that I believe the election is going to be largely a referendum on O. As such, the identity of the GOP challenger has less significance, what matters is the skill of the nominee. On that score, losing one's nerve at the outset isn't a good sign.
Agreed. However, Obama continues to be a very attractive candidate in superficial ways. He's black, which gets him 90% of the black vote and he black, which gets him votes from whites who don't want to see the first black president fail. He's tall, he's lean, he has young kids and an attractive wife, he has the media on his side. He has great vocal tone. He can speak complete nonsense in such a way that inspires and uplifts those folks who aren't really paying attention.
Elections often end up being beauty contests and I'm afraid that his looks and style can overcome a lot of his substantial negatives.
Or put another way; I don't trust the collective wisdom of the American voters.
He certainly is black; however, his oratorical eloquence seems to me to have vanished entirely.
Where I really disagree with you, Ted, is that I
DO trust the collective wisdom of American voters. Definitely. I found the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections to be totally explicable, the Republicans richly deserved to lose both, and the voters quickly saw through the Obaman bullshit, voting appropriately in 2010. George Bush, as crappy as he turned out to be, was preferable to both Algore and The Pompous Windbag. Bush Sr. certainly deserved to be punished for "Read My Lips," and in retrospect Clinton was probably the correct choice for reelection as opposed to Bobdole. Even Jimmy Carter's election in 1976 was understandable, given the unusual circumstances.
When was the last time you think the voters went radically astray??
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register