John McCain is surely the dullest candidate for president we've had in years and all signs point to his defeat come November.

Barack Obama appears to be a shoo-in and it's all over but the voting.

I say - not so fast. There's no question that Obama has positioned himself as the second coming of John F. Kennedy, especially with this trip overseas where he's being adored, namely in Europe, just as he's adored here in the USA. In fact, all the trappings are there for a repeat performance. He's doing the JFK rag.

But wait a minute. With all that going for JFK - the multitudes swooning for him - well, after the votes were counted, JFK won by the slimmest margin within the 20th century. True, he outnumbered Richard Nixon in the Electoral College 303 to 219, but, when the POPULAR vote was tallied, Nixon and JFK were in a virtual dead-heat. JFK won by a nose.

I'm old enough to remember this, but in fact-checking it for my novel of JFK and the 1960s (THE DAYS OF THE BITTER END) I was astonished all over again to find that, in the end, JFK was ahead of Nixon, nationally, by no more than 100,000 votes - and there is still talk that even that number was achieved through some hanky panky. (To put it another way, JFK beat Nixon by two thirds of one percent, 49.7 to 49.5.)

This is starting to sound like Obama versus McCain; on the one hand the charismatic candidate, Obama, and then, well, then there's McCain who falls asleep at his own speeches. Even Republicans find him generic or less. (Republican Light.) There have been no head-to-head debates between these two, as of yet, but they still keep going at each other and certainly Obama always gets the better result.

So did JFK, or so it seemed. Those Kennedy-Nixon debates were televised and it's part of our heritage to remember that Nixon came across as bumbling, gloomy and sweaty, while JFK was viewed as articulate, cool and princely. Yet, and yet, people who listened to the same debates on RADIO picked Nixon as the winner. (At worst, a draw.)

Still, observers (such as myself, a huge fan of Kennedy's) were sure that JFK would win this thing in a walk.

[Caution: If you think I've come here to bash Nixon, wrong. He had admirable qualities aplenty, as when he helped save Israel in 1973.)

JFK had everything going for him. Nixon? Practically nothing. (When viewed as a popularity contest.)

Nixon had Pat, a wonderful first-lady (in waiting) in her own right - but she was no Jackie. Another plus for JFK; a minus for Nixon.

JFK was handsome. Nixon was not. The Kennedys, all of them, were photogenic and fun.

Nixon was not fun!

JFK's speeches (like Obama's today) thrilled the people. Nixon did not thrill!

JFK gave us hope and promise. Nixon (or so it seemed) only gave us politics.

JFK offered us new frontiers. Nixon offered nothing except more of the same (or so it seemed).

JFK was youthful. Nixon was old (or so it seemed).

JFK galvanized the youth of the America. Nixon's appeal was strictly middle-brow (or so it seemed).

JFK charmed America's intellectuals as he charmed everyone else. Nixon charmed nobody (or so it seemed) and was thought to be un-read.

What a shock, then, to find that when Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite kept posting the results, Behold - JFK, who had so electrified the nation, and the world, was barely making it, and Nixon, who put us to sleep, was gaining!

Nixon had just as many Americans in his pocket as JFK.

We were astonished to learn that all this time there was "another America" that had chosen this moment to speak up.

McCain? Obama?

Sound familiar?

Jack Engelhard's latest novel, "The Bathsheba Deadline," now in paperback, places journalism at the center of our war on terror and has been cited by best-selling author Robert Spencer ("The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam") as "a rousing thriller about clashing civilizations." He can be reached at ViewOpinion.@aol.com.