Yeah, do we know whether or not Obama indulged on wishful thinking that it was okay to accept this favor because he paid market price and the whole idea started with Rezko or did Obama deliberately go looking for a favor?

And who would those people be, Dan?

It's very wearing to have my support of a candidate characterized as putting him on a pedestal and having sky-high and unrealistic expectations. It really is an arrogant characterization. I'm very practical in my support.

It seems very clear to me that the Democratic Party needs a serious shake-up. I suspect that the establishment figures like the Clintons will be not be up to that. I thought Dean might be able to--but that didn't work out because he's simply not a good campaigner or a good manager.

Obama is my choice....but he certainly isn't my god. I do admit to enjoying oratorical skills after years of Bush II mangling of the language. If you want to have at me for that enjoyment, feel free.

Oleeb,

You are sooo preaching to the choir if you directed this response to me: "I think it is important not to have blinders on about any candidate, but I find the insistence of many who support Obama on wearing blinders pretty disturbing."

Go see my posts:

Jan 5 (martin luther king)
Jan 6 (what argument can be used)
Jan 9 (if I don't vote for Obama)
Jan 9 (the chicago tribune story)(see the all-out-attack and low rating that just posting a link that put Obama's record in question brought on)
Jan 9 (my highest hopes)

There are probably many more like these if you want to look for them.

A few other things:

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent who wouldn't dream of voting another Republican into office until somebody with some sense in their head and ability to lead gets hold of that runaway train they call the Republican party.

I am glad you responded as you did though, because what you are saying needs to be said and you said it very well.

Your third paragraph from the bottom lists all the reasons that I feel Edwards is the best choice.

As for this statement you make:

"Neither of them speaks with any passion or specificity about the genuine crises we face in the nation after two terms of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history."

I agree that Obama is not specific enough. But your statement above is not fair to Obama who HAS passionately discussed the need to come together to reduce the power of special interests. Edwards gets credit for leading on this,but Obama has talked plenty about the issue. Nonetheless, for any leader to educate the voters about this problem in a national election is NEW and it's the KEY to resolving ANY of those things you list IF the public is also mobilized to back up leaders who want to resolve this problem. So give Obama credit for this; he earned it.

Obama could have more easily promoted the status quo and placated the special interests as Hillary has done--and many in the public would continue to be half-aware of the problem. Lack of education about the key problems combined with the consequences of voter apathy is a huge part of what got us into such a mess. So again, credit to Obama and especially Edwards.

Edwards led on this issue, but he has no Senate seat to lose. That makes Obama's willingness to make this a part of the national discussion VERY courageous.

Watch Hillary, she acts like THE issue (money in campaigns) is just a pesky fly on the wall. She didn't even use the word special interests until after was clear that Edwards beat her because of his willingness to tell the truth and educate people on the subject. She didn't even use the word until it became clear that Obama was going further on this subject than he had initially and achieving great success because of it. (People aren't stupid. They don't always have the time to see past the smoke and mirrors to the main issues, but they know when somebody is giving them some meat)

On this statement:

"Neither of them concede that corporate power and corruption have fundamentally skewed the social contract in our country and that needs to be fixed or we eventually will see our democratic system go by the wayside."

You hit the nail on the head, and I feel like a broken record I've said similar things so often. But again, I have wondered if Obama is trying to say this in a somewhat general way to avoid unleashing an all out attack against him and also to avoid being labeled as a FEAR monger by the MSM and Republicans. (Imagine how that label would play out in a GE)

Also, is it possible that it's not smart to harp on how bad things really are if that would cause a loss of the very heart needed to mobilize the will to make it better?

I think Obama's, "yes we can" encouragement is the generous gift of a minority kid who grew up with one parent and is intimately familiar with how to beat odds. I think it's very rare for someone to be able to inspire so many in the way Obama does. This is a rare gift that the citizens of this country need if we are going to have the will and the heart to make real changes. He's not your average politician. (well, maybe yours, but not mine)

Finally, in case you didn't read the last part of my post, I concluded with the fact that I am still waiting for Obama to go on the record with more specifics about the type of changes he would make. To date, that's the biggest problem I have with Obama.

. I agree with you that the feel one gets from Obama is that he is smarter and certainly more modern. That does not make him anything beyond just another politician. It makes him a pretty good one and I think anyone would acknowledge that

Obama is a masterful politician due to a combination of intellect, judgment and leadership. That is what makes him brilliant and has catapaulted him onto the national scene. Although, it is not acknowledged in the media, Obama is running toe to toe with politicians who have been on the national scene for 15 years and he had to start from scratch. That makes him far more than just another politician. Biden, Dodd nor Kucinich with all their experience could accomplish what Obama has politically in 3 short years on the national scene. To say that he is a pretty good politician is a gross understatement.

. She tends to emphasize the female vote and older, more traditional Democrats. He tends to emphasize African-American voters (as he's clearly been doing especially in SC), the young and independent white, well educated voters looking for something different.

This is a misrepresentation of Obama's campaign. He did not emphasize African American voters in his campaign. In fact, Hillary has had a double digit lead over him in terms of the black vote since the beginning of the campaign, until her and Bill decided to introduce a biased racial tone into the campaign with the remarks of Sheheen, a fired HRC campaign supporter and Bill Clinton. Hillary at the same time has consistently introduced the gender card.

They are reduced, as any similar products are, to emphasizing small differences in order to create contrast in the minds of voters (consumers)in hopes of getting them to choose/buy their candidate (product)on election day

What we are witnessing is two very different styles of leadership and two very different visions for the direction of this country. Hillary believes is wielding power and engaging our military might globally to resolve problems while caving to corporate interests when it comes to the economy. Obama believe in working with dissent and opposing views to find solutions to the nations problems while engaging in robust diplomacy as the primary focus of our foreign policy to restore our stature in the global community. These are the primary character contrast we need to choose between. We have a politician with a track record of good judgment who gets it right the first time and a politician who claims that she is ready to lead on the first day despite having a track record of poor judgment that does not learn from  mistakes with all the experience she has acrued she repeats her errors of judgment as the K-L bill attests to as well as the 'mandatory' requirement in her national healthcare proposal.

. They are decidedly not proposing to change the balance of power in Washington to put the average American back in charge.Neither of them speaks with any passion or specificity about the genuine crises we face in the nation after two terms of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history

I am uncertain how you have acquired this perception but it is false. Obama speaks consistently about restoring our govenrment to the people and taking it out of the entrenched corporate interests in DC. His vision for the country encompasses the awareness that we need a grass roots movement in order to restore our democracy to the citizens. He tells the electorate that people who love their country can in the face of incredible odds, take back their country. No campaign is going to be able to give specifics about the details of how they will do anything as the circumstances and situations that will come about in their administration is unpredictable. What the candidates do is tell us their vision for what the direction they would like to see the nation go and what policies they are proposing to do that. A list of those policies as you know are on Obama's website.

 Neither of them discuss the importance of putting an immediate end to the police state tactics implemented these past 7 years regarding spying on citizens, torture, habeus corpus, etc. Neither of them discuss evem taking a look at restoring some responsibility to our financial and banking system

Not so. As a constitutional scholar who taught con law at the U of chicago, Obama has spoken out against torture, habeus corpus and as a state legislature he fought to ensure that detainees had all confessions taped. Obama has stated he will restore habeus corpus and uphold the Geneva Convention. Obama as a rookie senator worked to ensure that the language in the Patriot Act did not strip us of our civil rights just as warrantless wiretapping. Obama has also spoken about the need for greater banking and mortgage lending regulations so that banks can't engage in predatory lending practices or charge consumers unlimited credit fees. Obama did voted against the bankruptcy bill for that very reason, whereas Hillary voted for it.

There are politicans prior to Bush II, you know. The theme of WDC pols needing to go and the leadership of the party requiring change and even handing things to younger people are not unknown trends. There is nothing that unusual in Obama's challenge.

I am quite glad that the primary wasn't decided after Iowa. I want the primary to extend PAST Super Tuesday until every last person has been heard from. We'll have plenty of time to see how Obama handles negative campaigning since it seems quite obvious that the Clintons are up to the slinging of mud.

I certainly hope we fight all the way down to the last vote being counted in the primary and then we can repeat it in the general election.

"And a politician who is "real?" Gimme a break."

I said "MORE real."

"You Obama true-believers..."

I guess since this is the second response to my post here that assumes I am a "true-believer," I must have been unclear. (see response to Oleeb if you want details)

 The successful ones also have the ability to deal with negative campaigning, and I haven't see that from Obama yet.

What is your reference criteria for success, winning the election? Can you name a great President who dealt with negative campaigning of the nature we have today? It seems to me that we do not need successful politicians what we need are great leaders  and those talents are not judged by the ability to handle negative campaigns but rather on the ability to lead and have a vision for the country.

A successful politican is typically one who is corrupt and owned by special interests groups and who knows how to not only lie well but who basically has no record of accomplishment to state on and so they engage in negative campaigning to shift the focus away from themselves and onto their opponent.  Individuals like that do not make great Presidents nor are they typically decent human beings who believe in honesty and integrity above and beyond their own personal ambitions.