I was told by a Democrat (union type) that the candidate in fifth position in the early 1992 campaign would win it all. I said why would America elect some governor from Arkansas. He said that the best looking guy wins and in most cases (Nixon's mom and dog thought he was good looking) it is true. So based on that, would Barack win the Dems and Mit the Republicans nomination and then Mit would win because he looks like he could play a president in a movie?
Hillary is a bit too wicked witch so Obama was winning by default. Overall, I think Mit has it based on having that presidential look.
I have to agree with you there.. Mit looks the most presidential, though not my first choice.. Hilary looks like a<insert AGS's favorite derogatory swear word here>. She just has this smug, uptight, I'm better than you look about her. Hell, Edwards even has a semi genuine smile. Hilary looks as if she has to think about castrating Bill to get a half way decent smirk out of her. She is just an all around ugly person. Inside and out.. She just looks mean.
If democrats want a strong presidential candidate, they should choose Hillary for candidacy. She is a much better orator than Obama and has experience in politics that Obama lacks. Also, if you've seen his interviews, you'd notice he runs out of words while taking about many issues and is very repetitive.. I'd actually be very happy to see someone from minority community getting at least nomination for the top job, and I sincerely believe that Obama might take the US out of the disastrous mess Bush has gotten it into. However, politics relies not just on intentions and words but also on charisma of the personality of the leader.
What are you talking about?? Bill wouldn't date no ugly girls, she was purtier than any girl back in Hope, Arkansas. \