So we left them to teach the Gorillas...

"A leader is a dealer in hope." --Napoleon

"We were living in trees when they met us, and they showed us each in turn,
That water would certainly wet us, and fire would certainly burn,
But we found them lacking in uplift, vision and breadth of mind,
So we left them to teach the gorillas and followed the march of mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed, they never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-born, like the Gods of the Marketplace.
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come,
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome..."
--Rudyard Kipling

"But they were all of them deceived." -The Lord of the Rings

For 7 years, America has yearned for a more articulate, more eloquent President. I sometimes think that people are so blinded by the superficialities of candidates that they are able to ignore their substantive shortcomings. Not that all candidates don't have shortcomings, but it seems that if the candidate is attractive and articulate that the nation is more apt to gloss over their problems on substance.

And therein lies the causes of Hillary Clinton's Iowa catastrophe. No offense to the Senator and former First Lady, but she is not particularly attractive, and though she is not inarticulate, she is frequently shrill, mean-sounding, and angry. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton is one of the most capable political maneuverers of our time, but she is not the kind of person that strikes the general populace as a likeable leader. Enter Barack Obama.

Everybody thought he was really running for 2012 or perhaps for the Vice Presidency when he got into this race. I knew better. First, the Clintons do not reward people who challenge them, and so if the Obama candidacy was to gain any traction, his chances of being #2 on a Hillary Rodham Clinton ticket would be next to nothing. And why would Obama run for President in 2008 when it would make more sense just to wait if he were really aiming for 2012? After all, given his last rock-star performance at a Democratic National Convention, he would probably be invited back. He could spend time building his grassroots, formulating an agenda and national organization, and using the Senate as his bully-pulpit to foment a 2012 or 2016 campaign--and he's plenty young for that strategy to work.

But he, and very few others, saw the great opportunity in Hillary's weaknesses--likeability. With his young personality, great oratory skills, and message of "hope," he knew that if he stayed in there long enough, he could bring down Goliath. And it appears that he has. I knew Hillary would be in trouble when billionaire David Geffen and long-time Bill Clinton financier abandoned the Clinton Coronation to take a chance on upstart Obama.

Obama's win in Iowa has now propelled him into the hearts of millions of Americans--especially young people. In one article I read this week, Obama's candidacy was compared to that of Robert F. Kennedy's campaign with respect to the intensity of support and even mania surrounding it. Obama's message of Unity and Hope might just be the ticket to the White House. I believe that people really are genuinely tired of politics as usual in Washington. People are tired of us vs. them, rich vs. poor, corporations vs. unions, republicans vs. democrats, christians vs. secularists, etc.

The last person to unite the country around a message of unity and hope was a man who said that it was "morning in America again." Ronald Reagan's vision of optimism and hope propelled him to unseat Jimmy Carter in a landslide after a hard-fought primary against a "more experienced" George H. W. Bush. He of course went on to win the largest electoral college landslide in American history in 1984.

Many people have compared Clinton to Reagan--amazing speaker, wonderful orator, uniter of his party, etc. I think that comparison is misplaced. Ronald Reagan emboldened his party--he made it to be OK to be a Republican again after the desolation the party faced in the wake of Nixon and Watergate. Reagan created a new coalition of people that lasted well beyond his tenure, and his Vice President was handily elected to the Presidency in 1988. Reagan laid the foundation for the Gingrich Revolution in 1994 when the Republicans took both houses of Congress.

In contrast, Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, and in 1992 garnered only 43%. His party, after 40 years in control of the House, was decimated in 1994 and was out of power until 2006. He compromised most of his party's principles to avoid a catastrophic loss in 1996, signing massive states rights welfare reform, supporting free trade, and finally acquiescing to the calls for a balanced budget after forcing Congress to shut down the government in the wake of his refusal to cut spending. And perhaps most of all, Clinton was utterly despised and hated by rank-and-file Republicans during his entire tenure. Reagan was more or less beloved even though the press loathed him.

Obama, I think, has the potential to become the Democrats' Reagan. I hate to say this, or admit it, because I rather loathe Obama. I think his policy proposals would be disastrous for the nation's economy, and I think he could shape up to be a rerun of Jimmy Carter on foreign policy. And that's the kicker:

Obama has not run on policy. He has run on this vague message of hope and optimism. In fact, little of this year's campaign has come down to policy on the Democrat side. Perhaps that's because all of the Democrats have roughly similar policies. So if Obama gets the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency based on non-policy, he will have to figure out exactly how it is he plans to govern. For this reason, he is a wild card--an unknown quantity. We genuinely have no idea what he will do when he is elected.

I earnestly hope America is not led astray by merely good oratory...

"Then the gods of the market tumbled and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled, and began to believe it was true,
That all is not gold that glitters, and two and two make four,
And the gods of the copybook headings limp up to explain it once more."
-Rudyard Kipling