Although the next presidential election is still 19 months away, it is already time to begin talking about the campaigns of the respective parties.

Democrats are gleeful because many of the top GOP candidates are downplaying their interest in seeking the nomination.

The Democratic Party views this lack of an apparent frontrunner as a weakness for Republicans.

Noted left wing columnist for The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, is on record as saying that the current crop of GOP hopefuls is “pitiful.”

Many big wig Democrats believe that the election is already in the bag. This, however, is a mistake.

Although the prospective GOP field may lack community organizers and inventors of the internet, there is no shortage of strong candidates.

Unlike the democratic standard bearer last election cycle, the GOP hopefuls have actually accomplished something.

Both Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are reform-driven governors who have money-sucking unions running scared in their respective states.

Mitt Romney has executive ex­perience in both the private and public sector.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a myriad of accomplishments under his belt, such as balancing the federal budget, cutting capital gains taxes and kicking deadbeats off of the government dole.

Many of these candidates may not be household names yet, but neither was Obama when he started campaigning in 2006.

If being the favorite for the nomination of your party is so important, then how come Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are not occupying the White House?

Obama may seem like a rock star now, but in 2006 he was just some stiff who had two years of legislative experience under his belt.

News-flash to Democrats: the last two men to occupy the White House from your party, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were not the perceived frontrunners for the nomination.

A plethora of candidates allows for competition, an idea that is foreign to liberals, so that the best candidate may emerge.

Democrats are quick to point out the weaknesses in the presidential prospects of Republicans in 2012, but does anyone seriously think that the record of Barack Obama is a proud one to run on?

There is a reason why Democrats who were running in 2010, tried to distance them­selves as much as possible from the White House, and that is because Obama’s record is one that only Nancy Pelosi could love.

Is 8.8 percent unemployment change we can believe in? Was a 2000 page health care monstrosity that had to be passed so we could find out what was in it part of the audacity of hope?

Is racking up one trillion dollars plus deficits three years in a row supposed to get our stuttering economy back on track?

If Democrats seriously think that this is the record of a winning ticket, then they will be in for a rude awakening on November 6, 2012, when the American people will expect a candidate to wow them with more than just words.