Excellent observation.
FReegards, from the swamps of Georgia...
History repeats itself. In ‘92, we had a GOP candidate who was not acceptable to a large part of party base (though, in this case, a wild card was added to the mix). The Dem candidate should have been un-electable, but unfortunately, was not. Our ‘96 candidate was less than inspiring also.
The Obama phenomenon is not really that different from the Princess Di tsunami of emotion. What do our schools offer, our entertainment industry, and our media, in the matter of facts and how to deal with them. How do “our” candidates get their, so very necessary, name recognition.
Unexplainable things happen, simply because unexplainable people wish them to happen.
Excellent observation.
FReegards, from the swamps of Georgia...
Clinton was orders of magnitude more suitable for the presidency than Obama. Whether or not conservatives agreed with him, Clinton was a governor with specific plans for how he would act as president. Obama, in my opinion, is an extremely naive, liberal idealist who will be eaten alive by the system if elected. He brings nothing more to the office than mindless platitudes about change, hope, and love. In many ways, his popularity is downright creepy.
You hit on something there. Princess Di was all about people wanting to be part of the story - to drop flowers, cry, mourn excessively hoping all would be caught on camera and preserved for eternity.
With Obama, strangely more than with Hillary, people want to be part of what they consider an historic point in time. They want to tell their grandchildren, "I was there when we elected the our first black president. I heard him speak, I shook his hand."
I don't think Obama is a shoo-in. I also think he'll have race baiters in his own party hoping he will fail so they can keep riding the race gravy train.