There is quite a difference between VOTING for the best man for the job and ELECTING the best man for the job.
If Your prefered candidate can not win the general election, You may as well have not voted at all.
I agree We have not had great leadership in quite a while, but We would be better off with the SECOND best man for the job than with the SIXTH best man for the job.
It seems to me that they are pinning their hopes on guys that couldn't win the primary the last election. So the guy that couldn't get enough votes to be the nominee last time is going to Save the world this time? If they cannot come up with someone/something to get people excited, it will be 4 more years of what we have now.
Obama has the majority, and he didn't even need it to win the first time. The republicans had time to try and get someone with something real to offer and sat around whining about how bad the Democrats were. ( But never really saying why.)
Now the primaries are here and they are whining about how bad the other candidates are.
Obama won a lot of support with a message, now matter how abstract and empty. The people liked it even though they weren't sure what it is.
This is a society that wants a new TV, vehicle, house, etc. not because the old one doesn't work, but because the new on is new. So then change must be good even if they don't know what it is, because it is new and different.
That is why Ford has been able to sell diesel pickups that won't run for several years. "The new ones must be good"
Sure can't type well, it's better now after the edit