FLASHBACK - No sitting Senator has won Presidency since JFK

[blogslut]

Remember that one? From 2004? It was a big hit. All the pundits covered the tune. John Kerry can't win because he's a sitting Senator. No Senators have ever won the Presidency...blah, blah, blah

And here we are, four years later. We have three sitting Senators running and one of them will absolutely become President.

Oh yes, things are so very different this year. This year, it's suddenly all about "experience". Now, the popular song is "Who has the most experience?", "Who has the legislative credentials?" and "Who has been making policy the longest?"

This post isn't about a particular candidate. It's more about the way these talking heads and 'professional analysts' repeat irrelevant logic election after election. And the general populace buys it, time after time.

I'm just so tired of it. That is all. :)

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I think I've heard that this was the first time that all the current candidates were from Congress.

[merwin]

2. Absolutely?

Bush is on track to completely destroying this country, or at least declaring martial law.

[blogslut]

4. I'm not sure what you mean?

A sitting senator will most absolutely be our next president. So, the logic of four years ago suddenly goes flying out the window. How does that happen?

[merwin]

5. I'm just saying that there's plenty of things that could happen between now and November.

One of those being Bush destroying our country, nuclear war, martial law, global warming destroying a massive part of the nation (causing martial law). Something tragic could happen to the candidates that make it to the general election. The patriot act allows Bush to declare martial law basically whenever he wants to.

In all honesty, I don't think any of these will happen, but they could :)

[blogslut]

7. m'okay

Don't get me wrong. President peddles has plenty of damage doing time left.

But for all intents and purposes, at this point, odds are we're getting a Senator for our next president.

[TacticalPeek]

19. It's not logic really.

It's simply a fact that since JFK, many Senators have sought the prize but none have won it. That does not mean, and I've seen no pundit say, that no Senator will ever be elected President. It's a fact to consider, then discard or use.

One might wonder why no Senator winners, why so hard (though obviously not impossible) for a Senator? Part of it is what they involve themselves with when legislating, perhaps necessarily.

Recall that one of the most devastating tools used against John Kerry in 04 was the "I voted for it before I voted against it" tv ad. Those were Senate votes.

[babylonsister]

3. I remember well; kind of blew that theory out of the water. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. and another meme bites the dust

[question everything]

8. Obviously this year a senator will

and this may be the reason why the "powers that be" in the Democratic party pushed Obama, before he would have a chance to establish a track record to defend.

And, except for incumbent presidents and vice presidents, the only one who won the Iowa caucus and ended up in the White House is George Bush in 2000.

(Carter, maybe, who came after "unncommitted.")

[kmsarvis]

9. WELL ,I GUESS WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A PRESIDENT .

IT CANT BE ANY WORSE THAN OUR PRESENT SITUATION.

[TheDonkey]

10. Was Gravel governor at one time? Might be an upset brewing.

[Alexander]

11. Nope. He was Speaker of the Alaska House before he was Senator.

[TheDonkey]

12. hmm. Well all that is left is all-out Anarchy.

[Catherine Vincent]

13. This will be the first time a sitting Senator will win the Presidency since Kennedy.

:)

[blogslut]

14. Will you still love me after the primaries?

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Of course!

You're one of the good ones! :hi:

[blogslut]

21. And so are you

:hi:

[fedupinBushcountry]

15. You are so right

I've been waiting for just a mention of it this election cycle and nothing not even a hint. Arrrrgh!!!

[Life Long Dem]

16. And wasn't it who didn't flip flop over the war or was for the war in 2004.

If the war is going to determine the winner and not the economy or both, then Obama would have the best record for being against the war then all 3 candidates. But I see Obama is talking about the economy. And I think they are both related.

McSame wants to pay for the Iraq war at the expense of the Americans. He will assist Iraqi's over assisting America's foreclosure crisis. He already is saying this. He said, no to foreclosure help (conservative views), and yes to 100 years in Iraq. How do you think he is going to pay for this? Look for America paying the price for 100 years.

[stillcool]

18. I saw a town-hall with Obama...

He talked about his top three priorities and he said first was to end the war, because until we did that we would not be able to afford to do anything else. Second and third were energy and health care.

[stillcool]

17. What always was..

is not always what will be. Aside from that never say never or always.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. But the Senators are superstars now that they battle the evil Bush-Cheney.

[loveangelc]

23. it would be fitting that the next President that was a senator would be the one most compared to JFK