This nomination is actually like many previous choices

[CreekDog]

In 1992, there was a compelling candidate, Bill Clinton, who had a bombshell come out during his primary campaign that made him more vulnerable in the general compared to Paul Tsongas. However, for whatever reason, Clinton had come across in a way that made voters choose him despite that risk.

In 1984, Hart inspired people, however, his opponent, Mondale had great institutional support and was widely respected. Ultimately, the primary process gave the edge to the safer choice.

Regarding 1968, I wonder if Bobby Kennedy's candidacy entailed a lot of risk for Democrats, despite his obvious appeal. I don't think he would have been the safest choice then had he made it, but he certainly was the inspirational choice.

And finally to 1960, Lyndon Johnson certainly had the experience, the political skill and many accomplishments to make him an excellent nominee. Yet John Kennedy, with less experience, fewer accomplishments but more charisma, got the nod instead.

Democrats face this type of choice often. They frequently are forced to choose between a candidate with some flaw or risk, but which *may* be offset by some intangible appeal that motivates or inspires people versus a candidate that has experience, knowledge and lacks the obvious flaw, but also lacks the superstar or inspirational quality.

That's just the way it goes, but it helps to look back on times when similar choices faced voters before.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I think Hillary is flawed and risky. Obama, not so much--and very inspiring.

Different, this time around.

[tblue]

2. Dems tend to nominate using our heads more than our hearts. But in the GE,

the heart-choice always wins. Barack, as Bill Clinton did, is winning both heads and hearts. I hope we don't blow this chance to nominate a winner.