"My boy"?

And the fact that he beat your boy in TWO elections makes him a better campaign strategist than your boys.

(I realize the post isn't directed specifically to me, but it does seem to be directed generally at Republican-leaning people.)

George Bush lost out because he sponsored some bonehead laws, made some broken promises, and seemed to be clueless about the economy. He was a left-leaning "New Republican". Helping people with disabilities makes sense, but the hydra that is the Americans with Disabilities Act, until recent court cases have reigned it in a little, was a monster. And of course there's the famous "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" pledge - if he hadn't been so gleefully smarmy about it, or if he'd shown some spine and vetoed the most publicised bills, he may have been able to get over that one. Oh, yeah, and the "Thousand Points of Light" - the American public didn't want a thousand points of light, we just wanted relative peace and to be otherwise left alone. As late as the week before the election, on the Today show or one of the other morning shows, he was trying to say the economy was fine. Statistically, we *were* coming out of an economic downturn - but Bush certainly came across as there having been no problems at all.

Not to mention that he's just a boring public speaker. Al Gore has a (deserved, IMO) reputation for having a wooden personality, but Bush was as bad - against a moderately charismatic Democrat, he would have had problems but against the kind of charisma Clinton can turn on, I think he would have had problems even *without* the mistakes he made. I've had the dubious priviledge of hearing him speak twice and he was just flat both times. Whatever else you may think about him, you've got to admit that Clinton can turn on the charm.

Then the Republicans had to go trot out Bob Dole, the Senator from Archer-Daniels Midland. Holy cow, what a boneheaded choice. I disagree with Pat Buchanan in many ways, but at least he can speak in public and has some visible principles. Dole was a "default choice" with little or no visible personal principles and his own funny speaking mannerisms.

And *then* they had to trot out the second George Bush! No wonder the Republicans almost lost the last Presidential election.

George Bush lost out because he sponsored some bonehead laws, made some broken promises, and seemed to be clueless about the economy.

In a nutshell, I agree.

Oh, yeah, and the "Thousand Points of Light" - the American public didn't want a thousand points of light, we just wanted relative peace and to be otherwise left alone.

Fat, warm, dumb and happy, the best way to keep the voters.

Not to mention that he's just a boring public speaker. Al Gore has a (deserved, IMO) reputation for having a wooden personality, but Bush was as bad - against a moderately charismatic Democrat, he would have had problems but against the kind of charisma Clinton can turn on, I think he would have had problems even *without* the mistakes he made.

And, if he were a better politician (either old Bush or Gore) he'd have dealt with that problem. Al kept trying to do it but it always seemed as if he were re-defining himself when he did it. It didn't seem to come naturaly for him. And Bush just didn't seem to be in touch at all. Perception is everything in politics.

Whatever else you may think about him, you've got to admit that Clinton can turn on the charm.

And that gives him a tremendous advantage when it comes to politics. And he usually plays to that advantage. Ronny had the same skills. Perot had it too, to a degree. His use of charts and graphs was a great idea. Make the message simple and colourful and easy enough for people to follow.

Then the Republicans had to go trot out Bob Dole, the Senator from Archer-Daniels Midland.

Hmmm, given that, in the past, we went from winner becoming president and 1st runner up becoming vice-president to President and Vice on the same ticket.......

I'm betting that the first party to craft the President & Vice team will win. You match speaking skills and personalities and give the public ONE option early on. I think it will eventually happen. Long range planning is where the future is. Start grooming your teams years in advance. And have exit strategies for with controlled turn-overs. The Vice-President is expected and groomed to take over the President's job after 8 years and during those 8 years, the new Vice-President is being groomed and publicized for the job. If you plan 12 to 16 years out, the opposition wouldn't even stand a chance.

Dole was a "default choice" with little or no visible personal principles and his own funny speaking mannerisms.

I'm sure he's fine in person and away from the media. Or maybe he isn't. :)

But if he'd been groomed and trained and so on, he'd be a far better candidate than he was.

Welcome to IWETHEY!