I think that Obama has a teflon coat, and I think that is a good thing.

It's interesting that now, with him as firm favourite to win the nomination we see the scare stories wheeled out, tales of vague associations to dubious characters (and, of course, no Republican candidate EVER has had dubious associations!) and how they will enable the 'Republican attack machine' to tear him apart come election time.

I think not.

I think that he has the biggest asset any politician can have - I think he is coated in teflon from head to toe. I think this will enable him to ride the GOP endorsed storm(s) and emerge victorious in November. The ability to deflect criticism is a great asset, and has been a consistent quality in recent Presidents - Reagan, Clinton, Bush....They've each had an uncanny knack of being able to walk through storms and come through the other side. Clinton is, naturally, very striking being a Democrat but the evidence is there. Allegations of personal indescretions which cause moral outrage to social conservatives, the successful impeachment and dubious pardons. He leaves office with a sky-high approval rating.

Bush is equally fortunate. We all know he has been a disastrous President in just about every way possible, but he still managed to gain re-election. Yeah, Kerry was smeared but that shouldn't have been enough for him to lose to such an incompetent man.

And it dawned on me that all of these men have something in common - They were perceived as more folksy, as easier on the ear and able to forge more of a connection with the average man than their opponent. They may not all have deserved to win (Clinton certainly did) but they all managed to make themselves look more 'in touch' with the concerns of a majority / plurality of voters and therefore won. I believe Obama has this gift too...I believe a lot of people know that.

Presidents from 1980 onwards and their opponents:

Reagan, despite being about 123 by the time he was elected, managed to gain the perception of being a cheerful, optimistic figure in the face of Jimmy Carter's increasingly irritable and grumpy persona. This made people feel closer to him in spite of dubious policy. Easily defeated 1984 opponent Walter Mondale (who had none of Reagan's folksy 'charm') despite uninspiring debate performances. He managed to brush off scandal until his final couple of years in office.

Bush The Elder - Yes, Dukakis was smeared into oblivion. But against, Bush managed to convince people that he was a brighter prospect than the cold, stiff Dukakis. If you're the more 'straight laced' candidate, the least you have to do is score a resounding victory in the Presidential debates, and Dukakis didn't do that. If Bill Clinton had been smeared with Willie Horton, he'd have found a way to make it bounce off of him, ultimately receeding and becoming irrelevant. Dukakis didn't have the persona to deflect these kind of things. Iran Contra somehow became almost a non-issue.

Clinton, Bill - Charming, likeable, able to connect with voters. More youthful, an infinitely better speaker and a resounding triumph in the debates. He made the plea for change and people listened to him. Bush looked older than Reagan in comparison. Despite controversy & massive house losses he easily defeated the uninspiring and ancient Bob Dole in 1996.

Bush Mk. II - Inept in almost every way imaginable but his 'goofy' nature helped him with millions of voters in 2000. He was the easy goin', likeable kinda' guy up against the stiff and monotone Al Gore. Of course, we know that Bush lost that election in reality but we also know that if Al Gore was perceived as the more down to earth character than he'd have won the biggest landslide victory in electoral history. 2004 should've been the triumphant year in which Bush was brought crashing back down to earth and sent packing back to Texas. Didn't work like that. Kerry was smeared, yes, but I believe it was more damaging that he was characatured by all and sundry as being the stiff, boring man with the elongated face. The scars of 9/11 also, of course, played their part, with the dubious notion that Bush is fit to protect the USA flushed down everyone's throats. Personally, I am of the opinion that Kerry came across as a noble man who'd have been a superb President, but it wasn't to be.

So 2008, eh? Of course there is no definite Democratic nominee as of yet, but let's suppose that Barack Obama does indeed defeat Hillary Clinton. We have a youthful candidate who enthralls those who see him speak and who connects in a blink of an eye with many of the people who see him in person. We have him running against a very grey, very monotone, very old looking opponent in John McCain. Perhaps it would be possible to slur Obama into oblivion (it can never be ruled out, sadly) but I raise you history and suggest that he man (or Woman?) most able to connect with and inspire people is usually the man who can take (metaphorical) bullets like most of us take showers.

holding back information the GOP will not. Inform yourself now or rue the day later ...

One of the things that troubles me about Obama, is how much he mirrors George W. Bush, especially in the area of accountability (or the lackthereof).

In January 2005, just days before his second inauguration, George W. Bush told the Washington Post "We had an accountability moment. It's called the 2004 election."

Fastforward to 2008, when Barack Obama told the media there was nothing else to know about his relationship with the slum landlord, Rezko.

And not to mention that the media has not held Obama accountable for his public record, and has not asked the tough questions about his record.

I don't want another unaccountable President, which Obama would be, in his and the media's eyes.

...I like it that we have a candidate who may be able to deflect the GOP's barely relevant bullets. I believe that, in office, President Obama would be plenty accountable.

One of the most troubling aspects of his candidacy thus far, for me at least, has been this cult like atmosphere that surrounds him, and the fact that many of his supporters cannot articulate why they support him, beyond the 'he gives me hope.'

There was an article in the Sacramento Bee, I believe, about a week or two ago, that basically said Obama campaign volunteers were being trained NOT to talk policy, when going out on behalf of their candidate.

If someone comes up to an Obama volunteer, and the person asks the volunteer where Obama stands on x,y or z issue, the voltuneer is supposed to stay away from that, and instead talk about how it is that they came to support Obama. In other words: people don't get to know where Obama stands on policy issues.

That's troubling to me, to say the least.

And as an African-American woman, it troubles me that the Obama campaign seems to have done an effective job of labeling him as the black candidate, and if you criticize Obama, you are a racist.

I've been called a racist several times here on DU, for taking Obama to task. And if I, as an African-American, am racist towards my own community, that's news to me!

My point is that all I see in the Obama campaign, is unaccountability.

I cannot and will not support that.

Some folks are in for a rude awakening.

Haven't we seen this all before?

Short of the biggest, evilist and most blatant attacks of all time, I don't think their best will be good enough to help the stiff, grey old man defeat Obama.

If Obama was against a slightly modified Huckabee 1.3 it'd be a different matter, I think. The opponent plays a big part....If Huckabee wasn't too stupid to tone down his fundee leanings just a tiny bit, I think he could one day be a frankly terrifying general election opponent for any Democrat.

Wasn't he the Teflon Don?
They got him too.
Seems the bigger they are the harder they fall
Just be prepared is all I'm saying