I think that was what amazed me more than anything... Both parties had 8 years (or for those who though W. couldn't make it into a second term, at least four years to develop two rival candidates of equal stature, but it just didn't happen again and that was the biggest crime against the country from the major parties.
Is the selection soooo bad that THEY were the best choices (not to lead the country) but to win the seat? The Obamaprompter is the only thing that stops him from using the words "Ummmm" and Uhhhhh" every other word - luckily it is very portable and well placed so that he comes off sounding confident in the wors which were written by others.
I have always believed and know it is so, that we elect speech writers in this country, not the stage preformer who delivers their speeches. The democrats were smart enough (as they always are) to recognise this and have multiple speeches ready for any day of rallying, as that when the news-services coered the rallies - they always had fresh material to air.
On the other hand, we got from the Repubs, endless speeches on Tod's remarkable snow-machine treks across the snowy wilderness, once with a broken arm, and isn't that some tough lady I chose to lead this country in the event of my own demise - we'll paraphrasing, but I think most voters worried if McCane will be around in 4 years, let known 8 years and if so, will he be worse the Ronnie in his latter days.
So the brains of the machines have surely started over, looking for the NEXT candidate for 4 or 8 years (likely 8 years) it reminds me of the Ricky Lake Show, or Jenny Jones show - once you have aimed your target audiences at minorities, it's almost imposssible to get your show cancelled, no matter how bad the ratings: why do you think Maury Povich has been on so long, that "When it comes to 14 month old Tara, you ARE the Baby Daddy!" and smut TV lives on and on.
Elections and politics aren't much different, you aim for a target audience and do what it takes to get them out to vote - truth be told, we have 3.5 years to see what Obama can do, and those who crossed platforms, choice age over valor will have enough time to see if they can justify putting their liberal ways away and look for another candidate that may finish the job that Obama has started - which I think he is giving billions away with little chance of seeing solvency in the time restraints he has given.
Last thought, the Government has a way of manipulating our thinking. A good example, they propose a program that cost 1 billion dollars, but only use $400M on that project, they tell us that the program not only came in way under expectations, but feed us a line that they made $600M in the process because it cost so little, that we now have surplus for other projects. Even tossing the words like PROFIT, and Available funding for other projects, when leaving that $600M in the bank seems to never be an option. Can't we just once call it as it is, must the government always over-estimate, causeing left over funds and then call them savings - they even phrase it to make the $400M seem as if because the savings were so high it is paid for with a huge surplus and they claim success at being geniuses in financing.
No one is honest in Capitol Hill, they all SPIN everything enough that competent ecconomist's heads would spin.