WELL: I think Discoshaman is half right here:
"The crisis of leadership in the Democratic Party comes into sharp focus when you look at whom they've chosen as their front-runners. Rejecting a passel of experienced mainstreamers, they've picked two guys who wouldn't even register in a healthy party -- a small-time governor and a retired, Republican general."
Except that I'm not sure what a candidate which would register with a 'healthy' party. If you're looking for winners over the last 30 years or so, you definitely want a governor, but as many have come from small states (Carter and Clinton, 3 general election wins between them) as from large states (Reagan and Bush, 3 general election wins between them). Otherwise you've got a bunch of Senators and Vice Presidents, who most of the time lose, except when they don't (Bush I, Nixon, Lyndon Johnson). And then there's the fine example of a President whose party preference was far from clear before he got into the race (Eisenhower) who, as I recall, did alright for himself.
In other words, I'm not sure there is any discernable trend in what previous qualifications make someone a good and electable president. I totally agree about Clark and Dean, though.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment