Obama theory......

Go back in American history and you will find only a handful of Presidential elections; indeed only a handful of Presidential candidates, who are able to create two pieces of critical energy:

1) Attracting the new generation of voters into actively being a part of the political process....

2) Creating a coalition not pigeon-holed into the most populous or powerful wing of either major political party.

Think for a moment as I opine (simply my two cents' worth here):

1960: Kennedy v. Nixon. The 1950s are looked back upon as THE decade of growth and change in American life. The baby-boomer factory was in full swing, lookalike houses sprouted up in new "subdivisions" in new "suburbs". Middle America could now look forward to such heretofore thought-of luxuries as indoor plumbing, refrigeration, and television being in their homes.

So, after eight years of the Eisenhower administration, why did the country (though by a razor-thin margain) decide on the "unproven" Senator from the rich family in Massachusetts rather than the sure deal, the sitting Vice President?

After all, if you heard their debate on radio, it was clear that Nixon came across as better qualified to be our leader; experienced and a statesman.

But hold up....those who watched the debate on that new TV set thought Kennedy won. Ideas notwithstanding, the bottom line was, Nixon sounded better, Kennedy looked better.

So, a new generation arrives in Washington along with a new decade.

1980: RONALD REAGAN. This seed change had nothing to do with the election against sitting President Carter. This was about the conservative revolution coming of age with its best possible spokesman at the helm. Americans were tired, belittled, and were beginning to believe there was no hope. Inflation, gas shortages, and that pest of a nation Iran holding our people hostage.

Along comes a man with a vision to restore hope to Americans and America's rightful place in the world as the leader for freedom. There were plenty of disagreements over policy, bills, and the like. At day's end, though, the American people heard hope, voted for hope, and saw Washington respond in kind. Certainly better than they have been in the past 20 years.

WHICH BRINGS US TO.......

Barack Obama. He's the next "one", no question. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bush 41, Bill Clinton, Bush 43, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall, Walter Mondale, Mario Cuomo, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, John Kerry, Gerald Ford......ANY of these capable speakers......put them behind the podium with the same speech that Obama gave tonight, and few if any go "gah-gah" over "change".

Obama has "it".

If the Democratic Party fails to nominate Barack Obama, the party endangers itself of becoming even more irrelevant in the next 20 years than it has been in the past 30.

Think about it:

----Record primary turnouts
----Obama captures Iowa, which is about as white as America gets
----He crushes his opponents in South Carolina
----He brings out new, young, fresh faces to the polls and to volunteer positions.
----He's got independents, young Republicans, even conservative Republicans taking note of him....very seriously.

Unless some gaffe of major proportions comes from his campaign, he's a lock for the White House.

BUT:

If Hillary and the "Establishment" win the nomination, do you think her "fiery speeches of hope and change" win excite the new? The disenfranchised? The independents? Republicans of any age?

Hillary gets nominated, and already 45% of the electorate is against her.

Obama equals coalition. Hillary equals turn-off. If the DNC doesn't see this, they are the stupidest group of politicians in the history of the United States.

Oh, and all the people whose cry for change will have gone unheard? If the Republicans can find an "Obama" in 2012......you get the idea.

Conservative Republican Ronald Reagan built a coalition that changed America. Another Republican could do the same in 2012 if the Democrats fumble this political football, and the GOP is wise enough to pick it up, and lucky enough to have "the" man or woman to lead the charge.

Because the people 18-39 will be heard from politically. The question is, whose smart enough to listen.

Let's talk Virginia politics for a minute......

......as I complete 30 minutes of being on hold with a state government agency. At least they don't play "Hey There Delilah" by Plain White T's like a former co-worker had on their hold system for their cell phone. AAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Does anyone, and I mean ANYONE really think Jim Gilmore (and I'm not even considering the other guy who just announced his candidacy) has a prayer of defeating Mark Warner for the U.S. Senate?

He hasn't been in elected office since early 2001. I don't think many Virginians know his background working in Washington on homeland security post 9/11, so that's not gonna help him much. John Warner certainly won't endorse him and there are some people still ticked with him over the car tax issue that propelled him to victory in 1997. Conversely, there are people that still are grateful to him for that move, too.

Meanwhile, Mark Warner was smart enough to realize his time had not come to be in the Presidential sweepstakes, and once John announced his retirement, it became a no-brainer that Mark go to D.C. as a Senator, then start plotting a White House bid, depending upon the outcome of this November, in either 2012, but more likely, 2016.

Let's say Hillary wins in November, and by re-election time in 2012, she has less than stellar approval ratings and there's a group of people who think "we REALLY need Obama this time". If they re-fought it out in '12, by 2016 Hillary would certainly be gone and Osama would be the "tired re-tread".

Mark Warner serves eight years in the Senate by then.....makes sense to me. Age would also be on his side.

-----As an aside, I cannot believe NO ONE is talking about John McCain's age. No GOP candidate will touch that potential landmine, and I think the reason why the MSM isn't mentioning it yet is because---

A) He is not a clear front-runner

B) When Reagan ran at age 69, he ran against a very unpopular sitting President, so one way to put "doubt" into the voter's minds was, "Is Reagan too old?"

C) 28 years later, the Dems will have a strong candidate, whether it's Hillary or Barack.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Enough politics for now. Let's talk about something fun, like the Jetsons episode when George's boss, Mr. Spacely, thought he had FINALLY gotten something on his longtime nemesis, Mr. Cogswell.

But, I'm finally on the phone with said gov't folks, so I must run for now. Just remind me to talk about six inches and a property line. :)

I am truly honored.....

You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan

People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms!

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?