If you enjoyed reading this morning John Hood’s assessment of the current state of the Republican presidential race, you’ll want to read Michael Barone‘s assessment for the Washington Examiner:
There has been lots of moaning about the poor quality of the field of Republican candidates. Some of this comes from the Obama camp, who naturally want to argue that none of these candidates’ experience measures up against what Barack Obama has had in the White House these past two and a half years; Republicans can argue that at least some of these candidates have more executive and government experience than Obama had in 2008, but the fact is that he knows more about being president than any of them does. Over on the Weekly Standard blog Bill Kristol writes that “the current field . . . . doesn’t exactly represent an overflowing of political talent” and argues that “the field could well remain open and fluid until Thanksgiving.” That sort of thing has happened before: Bill Clinton didn’t announce until October 1991. I think all this disparaging or semi-disparaging talk represents a mature appreciation of the huge demands and burdens of the office of president and that it’s hard to imagine as president someone who hasn’t held the office. In 1932 Walter Lippmann, who had observed Franklin Roosevelt closely for more than a decade, wrote that Roosevelt was “a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president.” Over the last two decades we have watched Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, each of whom was described by at least some pundits in terms resembling Lippmann’s evaluation of FDR, learn on the job.
Four weeks ago in his statement announcing he would not run Haley Barbour wrote, “A candidate today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else.” The wonder to me is not why so few men and women are running for president but why so many are.