dc_dux

pan..IMO, your argument only makes sense if all voters make emotional judgments of the candidates based on the number of gaffes....or past acquaintances...or other irrelevant issues. I dont doubt that many do.

And it falls right into the mold of making the election about image rather than issues.

Believe it or not, many voters take a more informed approach to the process and consider policy positions, depth of knowledge on the important issues, leadership skills (temperament, decision making process, etc) .....

Its a good thing youtube wasnt around for the first 200 years of the republic..I doubt any past president would have passed your test!
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 12 : 07 : 49-----

Oh, and I had to laugh at your "where are the Kennedys and Reagans?"

Based on your standards....What did Kennedy accomplish in his time in the Senate? Wasnt he just a rich guy who played off his war heroism and whose family made its money in bootlegging. Reagan, a B move actor who could read a script and "look" presidential, with broad ideological goals but only superficial understanding of many issues.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire