Last week a reader criticized my recent prognostication on the developing presidential race for two supposed errors. My "biggest problem" was overselling Barack Obama; my "greatest mistake" was underselling the Republican field.
I suggested that Obama was best positioned to capture his party's nomination because of the appeal of his inspiring message. While there may indeed be a constituency somewhere that shuns the politics of optimism and the regenerative power of hope, they haven't won many elections. When even the most stoic of policy wonks gets weak-kneed at the mention of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, it's not out of some devotion to clich?s on baseball or apple pie. Indeed throughout history the most revered leaders are those gifted with the strength to inspire.
Is my celebration of Obama clouded by idealism or personal preference? Hardly. Only the most oblivious partisans can question the breadth and depth of Obamamania.
Howard Dean, the most recent people-powered phenomenon, was able to draw a whopping crowd of 15,000 in Seattle at the height of his popularity, and he shocked the political world by drawing 3,200 people in Austin, Texas, the heart of enemy territory. At Obama's recent Austin visit, 22,000 people showed up. Even Bill Clinton, acclaimed crowd-raiser himself, was never able to generate this kind of enthusiasm. Obama is on the cusp of generating a national movement the likes of which America has never seen before.
Those who proclaim the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination (who are invariably Clinton partisans, Republicans or Beltway establishment pundits who don't get out enough) always point to their favorite surveys showing an insurmountable Clinton lead in national polls. Never mind that there is no national primary (yet). The polls that will matter are those in the early primary states, where the race is accurately reflected as tight. But it's worth remembering that polls at this point before the last election had Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt as the Democrats to beat. And we all know how that turned out.
Was my dismissal of the field "totally ignorant?" You don't have to take my word for it. Newsweek finds conservative activists "disgusted with the 2008 presidential front-runners." And from another article, "voters on the right are surveying the 2008 field with a certain level of despair." The Politico's take: "From consultants to bloggers to talk show hosts, there is a climate of suspicion - at times bordering on contempt - among conservative activists about their 2008 choices." Disgust, despair, contempt? Ouch!
What do the partisans have to say? Robert Novak sees a "void." Rush Limbaugh is a little more explicit: "To be honest with you, there's nobody out there that revs me up, so why should I pretend there is?" Erick Erickson, the man behind the Republican blog RedState, explains it best: "They all suck."
See if you can match his pejorative to the candidate: "Let's just admit it. Every one of the thus far announced Republican candidates for president sucks. From the lecherous adulterer to the egomaniacal nut job to the flip-flopping opportunist with the perfect hair to the guy who hates brown people to the guy we've never heard of to the guy who has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor while being consumed by a blue whale being struck by lightening."
I won't even mention what liberals think of the Republican field. Clearly Republicans are having hard enough times as it is. Chris Palko, I appreciate your response and commend you for doing your job. Being a public relations director for Republicans must be a painful task these days.
Jacob Shelly is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs
and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
