Actually, he did just do what McCain was too immobile to do - he mobilized people. If you like to study PR strategies, Obama should really impress you, as he used ideas, which had been straight from the scientific conferences. McCain relied on ideas, which had been state of the art when Nixon was campaigning for presidency.
Obama's skill at advertising himself, is not sufficient to demonstrate that he would be a good President. What concerns me, is not whether he can get popular support for his ideas, but instead what his ideas
are. His ideas represent governmental arrogance, a failure to recognize the value of American liberty and the Constitutional system that sustains it. That he can campaign effectively, is much worse than irrelevant, in comparison to that.
So, did Obama did something illegal?
Uncertain. It has been documented that he has received a large amount of campaign funding, from foreign sources - which, as far as I know, is illegal.
Clinton was bad? Clinton was the best president you had since Reagan.
Clinton was corrupt (as well as being enormously cynical) - so corrupt, that he was impeached for it (and fined and disbarred as a lawyer). Perhaps you remember the somewhat recent "scandal" involving Eliot Spitzer, the New York Governor who resigned after he was found to have been a client-supporter of prostitution, while having the professional obligation, instead, to prohibit prostitution. What Clinton did, was similar, but worse inasmuch as involving an
essential function of government and an essential professional obligation of the U.S. President: an obligation to prohibit acts of intended deception of courts of law. This is an essential obligation, since courts require accurate knowledge of the facts of a case, as well as accurate knowledge of applicable law, in order to produce an accurate, logical conclusion wrt what the law requires in a particular case; such a conclusion is "justice," and it is the principal function of courts and of government, generally.
Clinton intentionally acted to deceive a court - to cheat at a lawsuit, in order to prevail in it. Thus, he acted with intent to cause the court to have an inaccurate understanding of the facts of the case, so that its conclusion would be logically unsound; such a conclusion is "injustice" (false justice), and it is what Mr. Clinton sought to produce
while being the person holding the professional office of public trust, the purpose of which office, is to do the opposite. This is "professional corruption," and it does not represent the behavior of a "best President."
Anyway, like Obama, Clinton (and Gore) cynically sought and received considerable amounts of campaign funding, from foreign sources.
what finally is left is the choice between a old caricature of a republican candidate and a young upstart who attempts to dance on the top of the wave.
[...]
Also, all people who currently can only do the chant of the "Beware of the communist", are IMHO stuck in the McCarthy years. If you want back into 1950, just say so. But the real rise to greatness of the USA happened in 1960 - when presidents had been able to sell the product.
"Dancing on top of the wave" is a skill characteristic of demagogues, and it represents no essential U.S. Presidential requirement. Communism was (and continues to be) a horrible economic system that resulted in more than 100,000,000 human deaths, and a great amount of other human suffering, in the 20th Century - arguably, the greatest evil in all of human history; to disparage critical opposition to it, as being "stuck in the McCarthy years" or "want[ing] back into 1950," is an attempt at demogoguery, only (well, maybe foolishness, also). The USA was not designed to be a land of "greatness" (nor a land of satisfaction or intrinsically of economic prosperity); it was designed to be a land of Liberty. Any noteworthy prosperity that has been enjoyed by Americans, can to a considerable extent be attributed to
that, since prosperity cannot be a governmental regulatory product, but is, instead, a naturally human pursuit (and perhaps product, if there is freedom to pursue it).