Some folks talk about Bill Clinton's political success in the 1990s as if he had some "magic" that no other Democrat had that allowed him to defeat Republicans.

But the fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996. The totals in those two elections were:

1992:

Clinton 43%

Bush 37.5%

Perot 19%

1996:

Clinton 49.2%

Dole 40.7%

Perot 40.8%

Arguably, Clinton won in 1992 because Perot was in the race and hurt Bush more than Clinton. I am pretty sure that most of the Perot voters would have settled for Dole in 1996 which would have made that election much closer as well. (And equally arguably, both Clinton and Nader contributed to Gore's electoral defeat in 2000.)

So Bill Clinton's vaunted "electability" is vastly overrated (even when you factor in how unpopular GWB is and the unfavorable contrast that a lot of folks have.)

Furthermore, Bill Clinton's ineffectiveness from 1992-1994 (and particularly Hillary Clinton's bungling of the healthcare effort) arguably cost the Democratic Congress in 1994. I am willing to bet that if GHWB had been reelected in 1992 that the Democrats would have kept control of Congress and there would have been no Gingrich/Delay revolution. Once Gingrich/Delay got GWB in office, the country was set up for the "perfect conservative storm."

In sum, if you look back at the 1990s in a balanced way, you can see that the Clinton hype can be a little overwrought. But the history of the 1990s should give Obama supporters some pause also. If elected, the Obama administration will have a lot of hard work to do. I think that they will be up to the task. But I have no illusions about it being easy. Obama will be ready on day one and - I believe - get better on day two, day three, day four. He is a quick learner.

cost the GOPers and threw the elections in Clinton's favor. The overwhelming analyses of this issue hint that at "best", Perot's candidacies were political washes and at "worst", they worked slightly against Clinton. Of course that begs the question: So, from whence the myth? Most objectives agree that it's been promulgated by "sour grapes" GOPers, hoping to rationalized Bush's and Dole's losses, whilst diminishing the significance of Clinton's victories.

that the Clinton hype can be a little overwrought.

As is much of the Obama hype. And grand oratorical skills do not equate necessarily to a successful presidency.

If elected, the Obama administration will have a lot of hard work to do.

That applies equally to all of the candidates.

Obama will be ready on day one and - I believe - get better on day two, day three, day four. He is a quick learner.

And I will disagree here. While there is certainly "learning" that all presidents (except incumbents) must go thru to get up to speed on current classified information regarding the state of affairs, Hilly and Mac cannot be considered "slow learners" and both already know the hows and whys of government operations that Obama has not yet been exposed to. He is definitely behind on the overall learning curve, no matter how you look at it. No, he won't be any more ready on day one than will Mac or Hilly.

It will still, for many people including me, come down to that overall lack of experience in a world that can not by any stretch be considered in a calm and peaceful state.

First, Obama is the head of an administration just as Hillary or McCain will be heads of their respective administrations. I think that Obama's campaign demonstrates that he has better executive abilities than either Hillary or McCain whose campaigns have been lackluster at best and downright horrible at worst. The Obama campaign has stumbled sometimes but they have always recovered and kept moving forward.

So I think that Obama and his administration will be AS ready on day one as Hillary and her administration or McCain and his administration. Obama will have some "old hands" on board (like GmoreWB had Rumsfeld and Cheney) who know the way that Washington works. And I think that Obama knows a lot more than you and other doubters give him credit for. He may not have seniority. He does have knowledge.

I also happen to believe that Obama is 1. more adaptable 2. a quicker learner and more adaptable/less set in his ways that Hillary or McCain (and I think that Hillary beats McCain on this score). And I believe that he displays superior judgement. I think that he is as ready or possibly more ready to effectively answer those 3 A.M. phone calls.

So I am very comfortable supporting Obama. But given that you see things differently, I am not surprised that you see things differently. (I honestly don't see McCain as substantively different than Bush and I think that Bush has been a disaster.)

is that you will need 50.0001% of the people who agree with your assessment of "superior judgement", along with other deciding factors.

And my gut tells me that neither Dem will win and that Mac, by default, will be the latest of the "hold-your-nose" presidents.

We will see. But I did appreciate your more honest assessment of the Clinton years. Makes me wonder sometimes how many of the Dems who constantly supported and defended him over the past 8 yrs really had their hearts in it.

what IS your problem????

screw you formerly

your hatred of anything clinton is duly noted

ass wipe

I also don't believe in the myth/legend of Bill Clinton as you so obviously do.

You need to remove your rose colored glasses and breathe in a dose of reality.

Hillary could very well lose to McCain. And I think that she would fare worse than Obama come November. But the two of them are different candidates. They have different sorts of challenges. For one thing, Obama needs to do a better job of communicating to skeptics like you. Hillary (if nominated which I think would be a miracle) would need to do a better job of communicating to skeptics like me. I don't hate her. I am just skeptical. I don't have a lot of confidence in her. I think that she is overhyped. And I don't trust her. (As I said, I would probably vote for her but would invest no time or money to support her in the general election.)