Well, first I think she’s too concerned with electability, which I don’t understand because in the ‘08 election I remember her saying it was better to let a Dem win than elect a RINO, as the mess would allow a Repub to win, and the RINO would have voted with Dems anyway. I guess now she’s all concerned about mass appeal and electability.
Perhaps she’s thinking that somehow the person needs to be more of an experienced politician than an outsider / civilian, as the “Mr. Smith” kind of person wouldn’t handle the nuts and bolts of the job... or something like that, I don’t know.
I think most center-right people correctly surmise that an outsider would be far better, especially if they made it more difficult for “things to get done” because they don’t “play ball” so much with the D.C. world.
I wish Ann could get back to what she was thinking before and put her weight behind a very competent person who has a lot of private sector experience at business, or a private sector person who really has the will to stay their own course.
Kind of like a Truman, except street smart, intelligent, calculating and gutsy. Somebody very much able to play any at any game. Like a combination of James Bond, John Adams and Calvin Coolidge.
“put her weight behind a very competent person who has a lot of private sector experience at business, or a private sector person who really has the will to stay their own course.”
That, and what you went on to write, accurately describes Herman Cain. Or even Trump.