Reply #51: Running as an incumbent has advantages, so you can't discount the lameness

[AP]

which allowed him to be in there in the first place.

If Carter had been more like Clinton who followed, or LBJ (the good parts -- like committed to transferring wealth and economic power down to the people, rather than with deregulating industries) maybe the reason for Reagan to be never would have come up.

And '84: again, I say Mondale. A people were neither INFORMED about what Reagan was doing to society, nor did they have a real CHOICE.

Do you really think that 59% of Americans would chose to have more wealth and power concentrated in the hands of fewer adn fewer people, if they understood that that was what was happening?

Do you think a party that uses race to divide Americans, and used fear to encourage the transfer of huge sums of money to the military-industrial complex is beyond reproach simply because they were very effective at confusing people at a time when Democrats were extremely inept at telling people the truth?

Just look at things historically. What was so different about Americans from '92-'00? Not much, except that you had a politician who was able to articulate the truth better than politicians who were fabricate lies. Sure, Clinton was luck to be able to run against Bush (in the same way Bush was lucky to run against Gore).

But are we going to hate on the American public becuase they didn't have a champion like Clinton or LBJ or JFK or HST, or FDR in '84, and were instead saddled with a dud like Mondale?