It's Michael Dukakis' Sandbox, Too ...

I disagreed with your analysis of Ike v Stevenson, below, but I didn't have time to grumble about it last time, so I'm glad to have another opportunity. After starting a software business, I reread John Kenneth Galbraith's autobiography, and quickly had a good idea what'd gone wrong for Stevenson. I admit, I've always felt it was a little convenient.

party chairman Stephen Mitchell argued that liberals had to respond to the underhanded tactics of men like Nixon in kind.

Well, here's the problem. But it's not in whether to RESPOND or not. No, to win, you have to continuously come up with your own initiatives and offensives. Reading JKF, the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN IS IN THE PASSIVE MODE. Most governors learn about being entrepreneurial, but not Stevenson, apparently.

Now let's take a look at the opposition, GENERAL Eisenhower. He'd just played one of the bigger roles in WW2. And he'd helped win it SMART. And, because he'd served as an aide to one of the most political generals, McArthur, he was one of the few who's ever transferred his ability from battlefield to Presidency. He ran a mostly moderate campaign, but let Nixon play bad cop to keep the faithful around, unlike McCain. The Adlai legend seems purely like excuse-making by the faithful to me. He DESERVED to lose, and I'm glad 'cause I looove my Interstates.

Dukakis v. Bush I, mas del mismo, ISTR. I'm not glad Bush I won, but he was smarter than Dukakis. Hmm, a certain pattern here, huh? Maybe eptness is the biggest thing.

If you think McCain is epter than either Clinton or Obama, you haven't been paying attention.

Mike Dukakis was a 'moderate' according to this editorial?

The reason folks keep rejecting what Democrats are selling is that the only way it can be done is by raising taxes - not just on the wealthy, either. Voters know this, but they also know that a Democrat holding a promise of a 'middle class tax cut' is the Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown metaphor to a tee.