... the seismic shift in the game if Obama picks Clinton?
Oh god, it would be terrible.
The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.
President-Elect "That One"
So silly...It would be the most energizing, game-changing move of the enire campaign. It's a shame we won't see it happen.
It's just that it would be energizing and game-changing for the Republicans, too.
Alegre, you're letting your love affair with Hillary! cloud your judgment.
on the comparison of Obama with Kerry and Gore.
Obama shares Kerry and Gore's approach to debating (which is cerebral--not bad, just not zingy enough for moron meme-o-graphers in the MSM). Hillary's a better debater, though she's not perfect either.
But--BUT--to compare Obama on the stump with Kerry and Gore on the stump is just plain wrong. Kerry and Gore were both painful to hear on the stump, and Obama is natural, funny, and pointed. And we'll be seeing these guys on the stump more than in debates. Hillary was more like the stentorian-toned Kerry on the stump, and the idea of listening to her give stump speeches with her arm sticking flailing straight out with the palm down in something that resembled a semi-Hitler salute (or so it would show up in Republican websites) was a prospect I dreaded. She is the wonky person on the stump, not Obama.
Together, though, they're a good team. Put Hillary on all the Sunday talk shows--she'll stay on message to the end--and let Obama do the crowd thing he does so well.
could debate like Kerry. While Gore clearly got flustered by Bush's stupid inanities, Kerry took them in stride and obliterated Bush on both content and delivery.
I agree that neithr was particularly gifted on the stump, though I would say both Gore and Kerry were better than McCain. The one thing McCain has going for him is that he can charm the pants of an interviewer.
I like to break up public speaking into three formats: speeches (S), debates (D) and interviews (I). Each requires a different set of skills and I have yet to see a politician master them all.
Gore: solid S, mediocre D, solid I Dean: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I Kerry: mediocre S, brillant D, solid I Obama: brilliant S, mediocre D, solid I Clinton: poor S, solid D, solid I McCain: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I
I can't evaluate Bush because I don't understand why people don't see him as terrible in every aspect.
Anyhoo, this rough scorecard shows that Obama needs to catch up to McCain in debating skill if he wants to be perceived as the all-around better candidate.
Heh, yes, it would be news for a month.
It's also very interesting that half of the people here think it would be a seismic disaster, while the other half think it would be a seismic saving of a movement.
Perhaps the difference between true believers and realists? Y'all can guess which side is which.
I think there's plenty of both on both sides.
