Bear with me. U.S. Presidents are both prime ministers and heads of state. Reagan was a terrific head of state -- he led and inspired people, leaving much of the prime minister details to others. Every Dem candidate for the last two generations has been of the prime minister nature -- uninspiring policy wonks who were not terribly appealing. (Klintoon, the exception, worked both angles successfully to some extent because of his extraordinary political skills.)
Hillary just would have been the latest in the this long line of Dems, with the added novelty of her gender. (Interestingly, if she had played up that angle instead of harping on her so-called experience, she might be in a different position today.)
What I find interesting is that much of what is being leveled at Obama from the right was leveled against Reagan from the left. I'm not saying that Obama is the Dem's Reagan -- Reagan was unique, God bless him, and there unfortunately will never be another like him, the same way there will never be another Lincoln -- but I think there is an analogy there that obviously does not bode well for Hillary, nor for McCain in the fall.
Well said King of Florida.
I think Obama is much closer to the Democrats McCarthy than the Republicans Reagan.
I’d say he’s more like their McGovern, who garnered 17 electoral votes in 1972 against a Republican president overseeing an ‘unpopular’ war. If McCain can run a decent campaign, the non-hippie American public is going to have a hard time putting a newbie in the role of commander in chief over a war hero.