Obama articulates my core values better than any candidate has in my lifetime, by which I mean to say, liberal without the hackneyed pseudo-Marxist "haves and have nots" bromides which sunk Edwards (whom I otherwise respect a lot). He has that "thoroughbred" candidate quality that Reagan and Clinton had--but will his natural abilities translate into the ability to summon political capital from the ether?

Hillary, on the other hand, is probably politically closer to my moderate self, but I have some doubts about her leadership skills and her health care plan. Will she be too polarizing (even if not her fault)? She has the connections, but will she be able to build coalitions when her party seems to be turning from her? Won't her presidency bring the de facto return of a GOP congress?

I am old enough to remember 1976, when a decent, honest outsider with a winning smile came to power on the winds of "change" in a climate of disenchantment with Republicanism. Things went sour shortly thereafter, because this honest, smiling outsider was actually an autocrat who lacked connections in his own party, and who, maybe due to his decency, failed to appear strong in the face of hard problems. And this man, at least, had both military and governing experience going in. But he was a scold, and a foreign policy naif, and he turned out to be one of the least effective presidents in recent memory--even if you did share his views.

Put Obama or Clinton up against a moderate Republican who has shown ability to compromise sensibly, who does have undoubtable experience and who promises to stay "tough" in foreign policy...who's my candidate becomes not such an easy question.

Hellzapoppin:

Put Obama or Clinton up against a moderate Republican who has shown ability to compromise sensibly, who does have undoubtable experience and who promises to stay "tough" in foreign policy...who's my candidate becomes not such an easy question.

Such republicans have been hunted to extinction. Good post, though.

A "moderate" Republican who has already announced that he would like to put a couple more Scalias in the Supreme Court? The fact that you can call such a man "moderate" shows how far this country has sunk into the morass of movement conservatism. God help us!

Here's the thing no one want's to recognize. There is little if anything an President can do to affect world or economic affairs fundamentally. (However they could easily screw things up.)

Take the economy. During Regan's some folks created him with stimulating growth and prosperity by cutting taxes and regulation. Well Clinton, came in, raised taxes and imposed greater regulation. Guess what. The economy grew even faster and gov't developed a surplus. So is Clinton a genius and Regan wrong? Hardly! The ecomony and gov't revenues simply reflected a dot com boom and the high income/earning years of the baby boomers.

Foreign policy different, but only slightly. Since the 1950s the world has been getting more independent and drifting away from the US. If the european allies, or middle east decides to go a certain way, it doesn't matter if there's a strong and determined leader in the white house or a whimp. They'll do whatever they want to. The President can only pull around the edges, but the US increasingly has no influance.

Agre on the economy bullspotter--but it's a myth campaigners still find convenient (it helped get Clinton elected and re-elected: "It's the economy, stupid!")

Disagree slightly about foreign policy--we are a world leader if not "the" world leader; but our influence is certainly overrated and overstated.

Clark Kent, the U.S. has always been a country with a big conservative streak that can every now and then be talked into some progressive policies--twas ever thus. McCain's reputation as a thorn in the side of his own party, his distaste for the evangelical wing, and his relatively friendly relationship with democrats makes him a dangerous "moderate" candidate, whether you consider his platform moderate or not.