Hello Soapboxers!

[nmcd]

Any thoughts on this article from the NY Times today - here's brief excerpt and a link

From The Audacity of Hopelessness

By FRANK RICH
Published: February 24, 2008

Nancy
Getting the ball rolling

[pepperlc]

He he. That is a funny and accurate way to look at it. Obama wasn't my first choice at all but I did serious consider Clinton. I decided that I didn't want another 4 (or more) years of Clinton bashing that we had when he was president. There was so much wasted time, energy and money on seemingly nothing compared to the mess we have now.

So I decided to go with Obama over Clinton. I love Frank Rich. He has a great way of putting things.
karen

[zoeyz]

That's an interesting analogy. She has somehow botched this campaign, some of it her own doing and some of it was just bad luck that she is up against such a charismatic opponent. I don't support either candidate, but I think Clinton would make the better President. I probably wouldn't like some of what she would do, but I think she would know how to do it.

[Jeannie]

Very interesting stuff. I think Hillary is foundering because she simply lacks charisma and had the misfortune to be running against a man who has it in spades. We are a shallow society and we respond to personality more than substance. That's not to say Obama lacks substance. But in terms of being elected to office in the U.S., charisma counts for more and you've either got it or you don't.