In my estimation, yes. Obama is MUCH more difficult to beat than Clinton.
He comes across as a far more likeable individual. His ability to play the “I”m not partisan” card will work, even in his blatant partisanship. He’s very good at praising “free stuff” giveaways as he’s doing with the subprime housing situation right now. And on top of that, he’s youthful, energetic, and has a magnetic smile.
The GOP will absolutely need to nominate someone with a strong resume that puts his inexperience in full view. And they will need someone who negates some of his personality. Barak Obama would destroy Bob Dole in modern American politics, for instance.
I’m still pulling for Hillary here. She’s the more beatable candidate. Just a very polarizing figure.
Yeah. Most dems probably realize that, also.
yitbos
I disagree. It’s true that HRC has high built-in negatives and those negatives will make it difficult for her to win the general election.
But for all those negatives, she has successfully cultivated an image of being a main-stream candidate with WH-like experience.
Obama, on the other hand, is an unreconstructed leftist which no amount of spin by the media could ever cover up, and he’s the emptiest suit (by far) in the closet.
In the general election, his candidacy wouldn’t hold up five minutes under intense scrutiny, and though you can argue that the MSM would never provide intense scrutiny I would argue that the campaign is a hell of a lot longer than 5 minutes.
In my opinion, Obama would be the greatest disaster the rats could inflict upon themselves, which is why I strongly hope he wins the nomination.
If you’re looking at charisma, the choice would have to be Giuliani or Huckabuck.
None of the other Pubbies have it.
Only because Clinton is stupid enough not to take a solid position on anything.
Obama should be completely trounced in a general election because he embraces
the looney left's agenda.