Perhaps this works on all candidates, but it is beginning to become clear to me that one factor, if not the determinative factor, of the success of a Democratic candidate appears to be their perceived boringness. The more boring, the less likely people are to vote for them.
Look at Gore. Everyone knew everything about him already. No new scandals, his positions had been covered ad nauseum. And then there was the way he talked…so dull. He may have been the right candidate – the smartest, the most knowledgeable, with the right plan to lead us into our bright future – but people just couldn’t get interested.
And Kerry. A few scandals long ago in the past, but other than that the man was just kind of dull. He had no mistresses (that we know of) or ethics violations. He was an upstanding man who had an unfortunately boring way of talking. He may have, once again, been the better candidate for leader, but he would tend to drone on if not checked.
Before that was Clinton, who was exciting. It was fun listening to him, and it was also fun for Republicans to tear into him. He had all sorts of scandals attached to him, and it drew people’s attention (even the negative press made him more interesting).
Now it’s Obama, who is Different. Exciting speaker, different color skin, and seems to draw people in. Even the negative press (however incorrect and misguided) seems to make him more interesting and exciting.
So, am I wrong here? Should the Democrats use excitingness of a candidate (including nasty scandals) as a factor in picking candidates for the future?