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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (91608)	12/11/2006 5:25:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361069

you put the SALESMAN at the top of the ticket, and the BUREAUCRAT at the bottom. Best foot forward, as they say. A combination like Edwards/Kerry might have won in 2004 (even with all the dirty tricks Rove used). Likewise Obama/Clark in 2008 would be the right way to do it – or shall I say, the way the right-wing would do it, and win. They have often proven they understand marketing, sales, and how to win the big elections. But not many of the Dems: we often hear that both Edwards and Obama are too new and too thin on experience to allow Serious Democrats put them at the top of the ticket. I should note here that the GOP didn’t let Shrub’s complete lack of experience keep them from putting him on the top of the ticket. He’s a good politician, connected with people, and was a damn good salesman. He was smooth and he sold well. They knew that all their experienced, “serious” old-hands were electoral losers: the Bob Dole types. And so they did the smart thing: THEY KEPT THEM OUT OF THE RACE. So, why wouldn’t the Dems put an Obama or an Edwards up there, and let him pick a Clark or a Kerry or a Feingold for the VP to deal with the Beltway? People who have natural charisma, charm, and “star power” win elections. Bill “Elvis” Clinton had that from the get-go. Obama has it at a level I’ve never seen in a politician.