Looking Ahead to Tonight -- Part One of Two

Editor's note. Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

A friend called me yesterday from my home state. Later I talked to several people from my church, a neighbor, and a lady at the pharmacy. Not one mentioned tonight's New Hampshire first-of-the-year primary.

Without drawing galactic conclusions from a small sample, what can we say? Well, how about reminding ourselves of one aspect of the presidential race that reporters and political junkies like me so often ignore at our peril?

For all the discussion about what the Iowa caucus results meant and the virtually non-stop campaigning for President since November 2006, the attention of much of the American citizenry is only now being gradually engaged. That will change after tonight, but even more so after what could be a weeding-out showdown of sorts in South Carolina January 19.

Something else to keep in mind is the media's obsession with exaggerating the heights of success and the depths of failure. I'm not sure which is a bigger disservice but neither is helpful.

For example, pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama has caught a wave. Or, better put, he's created his own wave with the assistance of a cadre of correspondents whose eyes have glazed over.

A "new face," Sen. Obama was always going to get a helping hand up, especially early. But it really helps to have someone like pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as your primary opponent.

Sen. Clinton is no fresh face; she is well known to reporters. Lacking the charm of her husband but in full possession of the ruthlessness that runs in the family, she is in a bind.

Reporters have always been ticked off by the hyper-aggressive, intimidating tactics of the Clintons and the unsavory cast of characters that seem to appear just when they need them most. No doubt many reporters have been nursing grudges for a long, long time. Now some of the chickens are coming home to roost: even Bill Clinton is getting mediocre coverage.

But having said all that, here's the crucial point. By obsessing on Sen. Clinton's undeniable weakness at this moment in time and Sen. Obama's sky-high opinion poll numbers in New Hampshire, reporters are already writing the first draft of Clinton's political obituary. Nothing could be more foolish.

The Clintons are remarkably resilient politicians. They are tough, knowledgeable, and have played for keeps with cutthroat intensity for decades. If we think back to 1991 and all the problems Bill Clinton was wallowing in, it ought to remind us that these guys know how to get up off the canvas.

What about Sen. Obama? He has a wafer-thin legislative resume. He is for "change."

Pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani  had it right when he's observed that there is change that is good and change that is not good. What exactly is it that Sen. Obama means?

When the electorate begins to look more closely at Obama; when reporters (and opponents) begin to flesh out the barebones picture we currently have of the first-term senator from Illinois, it will no longer be all sweetness and light. Just as have Sen. Clinton and all the other candidates, Sen. Obama will have to defend his record and explain what his vision for American actually consists of. (By the way, the state NARAL affiliate has played a major role in helping him keep his abortion-on-demand profile low.)

In all likelihood, whatever happens tonight, the race will serve to intensify the competition, not put anyone on the skids. Keep tuned.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Two