Advertisement weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Democrats Need a Bobby Kennedy Now


If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate. President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected in the current economic situation because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy.

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked. Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection. Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet. Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead.

Obama's consistently low approval ratings indicate he has little chance of reelection. Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates. Most voters aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters. Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.


jayhawklawrence 2 years, 6 months ago

"...because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy."

This is a meaningless statement and if we could automatically delete every written or spoken word with these kinds of meaningless statements we would have a Congress and News Media that is 99% deaf and dumb.

The road down which the Tea Party/Republicans have taken us does not make us a "shining city on a hill" in the eyes of the world and the current stars of the Republican Party set to debate the issues tonight do nothing but reinforce the notion in front of the world that our country has been overrun by a plague.


ksrush 2 years, 6 months ago

Dems need something because whats in charge now isn't cutting it


beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

The biggest probelm with this take on the upcoming election is the assumption that people will just automatically vote for a Republican if they aren't perfectly happy with Obama. Nope. Perry won't win a national election, and Romney likely won't. People are strange about religion in this country, and Mormonism isn't accepted by many on both the left and the right. Will America vote for someone who some conservatives see as being a member of a "cult"? I'm not convinced they will.

Obama will win by default if he must. Too bad the Republicans didn't come through with a strong fiscal conservative who is likeable enough to get elected. Oh well. Maybe in 2016.

Oh, and to the blogger -- you still haven't shown us your birth certificate? Why not? What are you hiding?


Bob Forer 2 years, 6 months ago

"Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort."

Your facts are way off. McCarthy did not win "stealth" votes from those who incorrectly thought he wanted a stronger war effort. On the contrary, McCarthy ran explicitly as an anti-war candidate, and he surprised everyone by winning 42 per cent of the vote. Lyndon Johnson, anticipating no challenge for the nomination, was not even on the ballot.


meggers 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure the democratic party appreciates your heartfelt concern, Reasonmclucus.

Now don't you have a Tea Party to get back to?


Liberty_One 2 years, 6 months ago

No, the Democrats need an Andrew Jackson. Someone who will clean up the party and restore it to it's liberty-minded roots.


Steven Gaudreau 2 years, 6 months ago

We will never have leaders who are not controlled by big business because money wins elections and nothing else. Until PAC's are made illegal, nothing will not change. Laws will not change because our lawmakers are lawyers who are lining their pockets with the curent system. Our government is bought and paid for and we are all pawns.


Flap Doodle 2 years, 6 months ago

I think all the relatives of the current occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave who are in America are here illegally. That would pose a problem getting them elected.


autie 2 years, 6 months ago

Hey janitor, the problem with Bobby Kennedy, he's dead.


Gandalf 2 years, 6 months ago

RCP polls show Obama and Romney in a statistical tie and Obama beating the rest of field. Anyone really think the tea party will nominate Romney?


Gandalf 2 years, 6 months ago

The problem with this prediction is that the repubs don't have any viable candidate either.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.