Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

[justabeachbrat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You mean like Reagan?

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Would perfer Obama to Clinton or Edwards. But I think it is much too soon for any of them to be too secure. First, the election campaigning began way too soon--the alleged frontrunners run the risk of becoming very stale. That is why I think there is more than enough time for someone else to take the ball and run.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by justabeachbrat

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Remember when you posted about "foreign policy" and "learning on the job" . . . and how a governor couldn't do it?

That's what I responded to - also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Reagan didn't see the poor and needy", and I suspect you really don't either.

Honestly, most of the front-line candidates lack experience in one major area or another - unless you can give me a valid reason why that experience is completely necessary (or even beneficial - "practice makes permanent" after all), it seems like nonsense to me.