[upsdriver]

" Then again, how likely would it have been that a Democrat smoke-filled back room would have accepted Bill Clinton in 1992?"

To be honest, the Democrat party would have been better off if they would have dumped him at their convention. As much as he is revered by democrats, he was not good for their party or this country. He was and still is an embarrassment to decent folks.

[Bernard]

There's a message in all of this; with the primaries moving up so far in the calendar, there should be a significant of delegate votes left open at the convention. That would allow for any changes in mood between a primary and a convention. But, that would bring back the back room decision.

The next step for the professional election profit makers is to move the conventions up the calendar, so the final campaign can start in June or May instead of August or Septmeber. That way, they can flood the media with advertising and keep the election profits coming in, with no concern for the well-being of the country.

[azcap]

To be honest, the Democrat party would have been better off if they would have dumped him (Clinton) at their convention. As much as he is revered by democrats, he was not good for their party or this country. He was and still is an embarrassment to decent folks.

 

Unfortunately the American electorate is not by majority "decent folks." If he were eligible most polls show Clinton winning a 3rd term in 2000 and even in 2008 if eligible today. Some Democrats like to blame their '94 loss of the House on Clinton but the liberals lack of total control of media (thank you Rush Limbaugh), a powerful well communicated message (thank you Newt Gingrich) and 40 years of no results lost them the House. Clinton certainly was no help in '94 but by '96 he has obviously recovered his mojo.