How smart do you need to be to win an election, really? Shouldn't there be a test?

The real test of a candidate's electability is their skill to effectively communicate with the electorate. Other than that, their IQ, their life experiences, their 'knowledge' of anything, for that matter, can be hired, that's why presidents have cabinets and advisors; but, for a candidate's electability quotient (EQ), what they 'know' and how 'smart' they are, is nebulous at best and a non-issue for most voters. Sadly, "Reagan proved this"...to 're-contextulize' Cheney.

Republicans, as we know them today, got this quite a few decades ago. Democrats, as a group, not so much.

Remember the commercial real estate anecdote? Location, location, location.

Well, it's based on experience. And to paraphrase in the context of politics: Communication, communication, communication.

This is where the Bush/Cheney gang failed: they confused lying with communication. Endorsement now of the Bush/Cheney regime by the Republican core, their own party? Fail. Massive fail.

This also is where McCain is going wrong. In this campaign he's mistaking 'confusion' for 'communication'. The old adage here is 'If you can't convince them, confuse them'. Bad bet. It used to be fun for pols to play this game. No more. Now it's costing our country big-time bucks. The gamble, no longer pork barrel chicken feed, will trash quite a few political careers.

I hear the chickens marching down Main Street. Marching. Marching. Marching.

G H Diel