"The Democrats keep nominating "effete intellectuals" with NO ability to connect with the common man. From Stevenson to McGovern to Dukakis to Obama."
I'd like to see an effective counter to that. I'm predisposed to support intellectuals, but I recognize that I'm in the minority.
The poster in that case was not making either a serious post or serious point. Darts don't deserve a discussion.
As for your question, I've never thought of it quite that way. It's only a spin machine bit. I'm certain one can pick some flaw Rep candidates have had over the past however long and over generalize from it.
If, however, just for fun's case, you picked the Dem candidates since Stevenson, including him, you get a mixed bag. In addition to those, you get the list we all know--Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. I suppose there are generalizations there but they don't leap to the forefront.
The big thing, however, that pops to the front is Johnson's comment in 1964. By signing the voting rights bill, I think it was, the Dems lost the south. The Reps then worked that one all the way and continue to work it. That makes for a far better big generalization that "less manly" candidates.
Give me a break, he moans. |
