I was thinking this morning about why the democrats' slate is so weak. You have two Junior senators at this point. One who is very junior and the other whom half the county absolutely hates/fears. And this is in a year when everyone is presuming that the Democrats will win so we have to assume that this is the best and brightest. In contrast the Republicans have McCain who although he has lots of problems is a more experienced and credible candidate. Furthermore the Republicans had two strong Governors in the race while the Dems had just one governor. Which leads me to another anomaly about this race: Senator vs Senator. Traditionally Govenors have made stronger Presidential candidates. What is going on?

Inquisitor:

Which leads me to another anomaly about this race: Senator vs Senator. Traditionally Govenors have made stronger Presidential candidates. What is going on?

I'm glad you asked. The biggest reason why is simply this: money. Specifically, there was a certain large campaign finance reform bill that was passed since the last time a sitting governor was "elected" president. One of the provisions of that was that people running for office who already hold an elective office may transfer funds from their previous-office campaign fund to a campaign fund for another office if it is on the same level of government. Sounds like a tortured explanation, but what it means in simple terms is this: governors cannot transfer funds from their gubernatorial campaign to a presidential campaign because governorships are state offices and president is a federal office.

On the other hand, if one already held a federal office like, say, a Senator, one CAN transfer funds from senatorial campaign war chests to a presidential campaign.

Boy, it sure seems like that campaign finance "reform" bill reformed campaign financing in such a way as to help out candidates exactly like the guy who sponsored it...weird, huh?

But, anyway, the proof is in the pudding: Before McCain-Feingold, the previous two presidents (Bush, Clinton) had been sitting governors. Since McCain-Feingold, all three party nominees (in the not-already-happening-to-be-pr­esident division), Kerry, McCain, and either Obama or Clinton, are all Senators.

But you're right to think it's historically anomalous that we're guaranteed to have a sitting senator elected president this year. In fact, it's only ever happened twice (John F. Kennedy, Warren G. Harding).

Also, it could be pointed out that if having governors in the race is a hallmark of superior candidate quality, I could say that the Democrats win that handily, 1 to zero.

What's that? Governors of Arkansas and Massachusetts? I weren't aware that Democrats Mike Beebe and Deval Patrick were in this race...

Seriously, though, I know what you mean and I am deliberately misinterpreting the fact that Republicans say they want to fix the economy, but the guys who came in second and third (Huck, Mittens) were both unemployed!

I merely make these jokes to suggest that referring derisively to Clinton and Obama as "junior" senators, as though junior means "lesser" (which it does not, it merely means longevity...and, in Clinton's case, is it really a statement whatsoever on her quality that Chuck Schumer was elected 2 years before her?)

Our slate had a sitting governor, a former VP nominee, 2 very senior senators (who are chairmen of the Senate Banking and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees). You know what Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden have in common? They all got killed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Far from being a weak slate, this year the Democratic field was an embarassment of riches. The Republican field was just an embarassment (I mean, seriously, Mitt Romney? Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani? And these guys were all, at one time, front runners!)

But the dems end up with two very (sorry thems the facts) Senators. Obama is not really very well experienced in national government at all and Hillary's experience seems mostly to pertain to giving and collecting obligations and favors.

Old habits die hard. America needs change, not experience.

The Democrats could run a hamster against the GOP this year and win.

I now that that is the attitude many Dems have but I think it might just lose them the general. There is nothing so easy to lose as that which you assume you have already won.

That's what the Nazis and Commies always push(ed) for. And we have seen how well it works. What change is Obama pushing for? Can you imagine any other candidate trying to get by with such a weak campaign?

Neither party has a candidate worth voting for, but the sad thing is one of these turds will win.