Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5460)	11/17/2005 10:00:16 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544371

excellent, astute observation: If Clinton had been an introverted geek instead of a salacious living-large backslapper, his political fortunes might have been very different. And he was the most successful Democrat of his generation. so tell me, why do you think this is?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5460)	11/17/2005 11:09:01 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 544371

Dale I agree with you that Clinton's personality was a huge factor in his success though I also believe that you need a lot more than personality to go from trailer trash to Georgetown, Yale Law, Oxford, governor, president by 46. My question is that if media presence is so important to political success, how does that account for Bush? He is terrible on TV or really in any public setting where he is not tightly scripted. He usually comes over as snotty and petulant and has to be the most hopelessly inarticulate president in living memory. The only explanation I can come up with is B-U-S-H. Voters seem to think that children of famous people have a leg up on the rest of us. Nothing else makes any sense. Based on the life history of this person at the point that he entered politics, how could he have ever been considered for any office higher than dogcatcher? It's a mystery.