Get off it, you sanctimonius prick. Obama is running a better campaign than Clinton and you want to make it transcendental? Get over yourself.

Obama hasn't said much about the inevitable temptations to self-congratulation and self-righteousness ...

I'm all pins and needles waiting for him to address these two burning issues ...

In the meantime, I don't see any need for him to put off addressing the temptation to self-absorption, which seems to be the bigger problem in these parts.

Obama's campaign is only a movement in the media. I fail to see how his campaign is connected to those of civil rights movement and yes, please name ways and count the ways.

I suppose the fact that I think Barack Obama is a sanctimonious and manipulative politician in love with the sound of his own voice means I must be "a white man who is somewhat agitated at the prospect of a black man in power."

Read this by Joe Wilson over at Huffington.

I think it says volumes about the present, desperate state of the American psyche that content-less speeches, well delivered by someone with such a tiny CV, could sweep all before them.

How does someone in his 40s with almost no CV have the nerve to present himself for such an important office? JFK was young you say?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a war hero, who had been something like fourteen years in the Congress and the Senate and had won a Pulitzer Prize (not about his search for his "identity" BTW) before he put himself forward. And today he is not considered to have been a successful president, only a tragic and much loved one.

Look, the USA is broke, losing two wars, entering a recession that might even turn into a depression. I am really worried by Barack Obama's chutzpah, I see a boundless ego, untested by reality, standing before 300,000,000 people in a time of crisis and saying. "I am the best person among all of you to lead you!"

Getting starry eyed about Obama is like someone who has lost his job, taking his last savings and buying a lottery ticket... Hope. I don't know who is crazier, Obama or the people who cry at his speeches.

If it does or doesn't, what's your point?

If I was your queen, I'd be calling you back to the hive for a little chat about "working hard" vs "working smart" ...

Probably the greatest downside of posting, even on a blogsite like TPM, is that we lose the sense of an ongoing conversation that might actually build on its insights. People who wander in and comment without knowing what the blogger and the more regular readers are building upon remind me of what Walter Lippmann wrote years ago while wringing his hands about the American public sphere: It's as if the public wandered into a theater during the second act, stayed until halfway through the third, decided who the villains and heroes are, pronounced its judgments, and then left.

Fortunately some of the comments above really do raise serious concerns that have prompted my posts these past couple of weeks and, with them, an interesting conversation that we should try to sustain: YES, there certainly is something unsettling about Obama's moving from speech to speech without showing much of the substance of governing.

In the above post, I say that although Obama is more than just a speechmaker -- and a lot less callow than the candidate JFK, whose Senate record was abysmal (he voted with the segregationists, for example, while his brother Bobby was hunting Communists for McCarthy and Hoover) and whose Pulitzer was probably fraudulent (JFK didn't research or write much of "Profiles in Courage") -- Obama does have to show that he can do more with his crowds than wow them.

Can he? There are clues to an answer in how he has conducted himself in the campaign -- with dignity and sound judgment, and that's no small thing. But this is a problem I've tried to deal with, in a couple of other dimensions in other, recent posts, as well, here http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/09/if_i_vote_for_obama_itll_be_because and here.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/06/obamas_biggest_weakness/

One can't expect anyone who comments on a current post to have checked the earlier ones, right here in TPM, on the same subject, in the past couple of weeks. But that's what makes blog comments a big cut below actual deliberation or even just conversation. The next time I comment on someone else's post, I hope I'll remember that I may be entering a conversation that has already covered my ground.

That's a pretty definitive and sweeping condemnation of the Obama supporters.

It could turn out to be more true than not. But it almost sounds as though you want things to go badly to prove your point. Sheesh. Were you ever...well, a bit young in your behavior? Ever a political neophyte? Learned a thing or two along the way, maybe? Hopefully? Maybe a more positive approach towards some of the newbies that are coming in as a result of Obama is in order?

From what I've observed, with most mass phenomena most of the folks attracted to it initially aren't initially thinking this is their lifelong commitment or even a short-term serious commitment. They're mostly going with the flow, wanting to see what the fuss is about.

The energy and enthusiasm Obama's campaign has generated is an opportunity, that's all. If those of us who've been around awhile just cast the broad brush and piss all over these folks, some of whom are admittedly not handling the recent Obama successes well, I don't see how that advances any of our shared goals.

Are we trying to develop or grow a progressive movement--or will we waste the opportunity on infighting and negativity? Even if 10% of the Obama newbies contribute in some substantial way to the longer-term project that's 10% more people than we've had involved. And what we've had clearly hasn't been enough.

From what I've observed, with most mass phenomena most of the folks attracted to it initially aren't initially thinking this is their lifelong commitment or even a short-term serious commitment. They're mostly going with the flow, wanting to see what the fuss is about.

Jim, I believe that Obama can do a lot more with his crowds than wow them. If you study the birth and development of his volunteer organization, you will see great managerial wisdom and skill and efficiency at all levels. I was involved with an early volunteer effort and spent 45 minutes with Obama in a group of eight people. Barack impressed me with his total focus on every word spoken, his ability to politely but firmly direct the flow of the discussion in productive directions, his quick grasp of all points, and his skill in scaling issues up and down from big concepts to tiny details, always toward better understanding or better solutions.

I have read his books and detailed quotes from many articles. I believe Barack is a problem-solver with excellent insight into human nature, world politics, and business. When he does eventually present more policy details, I think most people will be amazed by their quality.

Most of all Obama struck me as a person who is comfortable with himself, not because of egotistical self-complacency, but because he is a person of principle who tries every day to live up to his principles. He knows himself. He seemed supremely relaxed physically, mentally, and spiritually. I believe that he would be very hard to knock off balance in his campaign or in his Presidency.

I am not happy with all of his voting record and policies, but I do consider him the best candidate.

This might seem like a laughably fantastical assessment of Barack, but in my 54 years I have not yet been mistaken in my judgment of a person's character. Anyway, time will tell.

About CV's and Obama's vapid, issue-less, "starry-eyed" supporters:

(a) Lack of a CV is a plus. That is, people are looking for someone not caught up in the political mire. As long as the person is not a complete idiot -- we've tried that -- who cares about their resume? As long as their smart, and have good judgment, that's much better than having someone who "knows Washington." Because, you know, Washington sucks.

(b) You do realize that no one gives a shit about "the issues," don't you? People could care less about the specifics of a candidate's policies. (*You* might care, but *you* are a political dork who's reading a blog.) Politics is a game played through the media's lens. Politics, for the people, is about feeling good about a candidate, trusting them, knowing that when the time comes for an important decision, they'll do the right thing. Politics, for the politician, is about getting the media to buy into your narrative. To buy into your side's spin.

The issues?

Really, who gives a crap.

I assume you're comparing Hillary's experience to Barack's lack thereof. So, Ill see your link and raise you this:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/ready-to-lead.html

The "Hillary is tough, experience and ready to lead is a canard, pure and simple. Nothing in her career suggests she will achieve anything lasting or meaningful as president.

Pls. note that I would gladly support HRC or BOH in the general election. However, as to the claims the BOH is somehow lacking in substance and gravitas and depth, you might want to listen to this detailed exposition by him on immigration, given to a very small crowd at the University of New Hampshire one year ago. Note especially the Bering Land Bridge quip at the beginning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZdEJdh8ss

Right now, all a lot of people see when they look at Obama - both supporters and critics - is Obama the orator and movement politician. That's not surprising, since those are some of the skills that come to the fore in a political campaign. But if you find out something about his life and career, you see that his background as educator and grass roots organizer are equally important. But most important of all is that he has been an extremely effective legislator with a knack for building opportunistic partnerships and coalitions to achieve results in areas of common concern.

Personally it looks to me like Obama has more significant legislative accomplishments in his three years in the Senate than Clinton has in more than double the time. Exactly what are the signal legislative achievements of Senator Clinton? The record is quite thin. I don't think there is anything that matches the Obama-Feingold ethics reform bill or the Obama-Lugar conventional weapons nonproliferation bill. My sense is that Clinton has devoted an inordinate amount of time to what is called "constituent service." That's certainly important, but I think we expect more from US Senators. Frankly, Clinton looks from her record like little more than a hard-working, but very risk averse, local pol.

The way Obama won all of the states he has won was not just by making pretty speeches, but by working for a year to organize his team on the ground, and doing a much better job at this than the Clinton team. He has been able to build new, electorally potent coalitions out of very little pre-existing material. For all of Clinton's alleged experience and self-promoted reputation as a doer, a competent manager, and a skilled legislator and infighter, we are frankly seeing little actual evidence of these skills in the campaign. Or at least we are not seeing evidence that she is the equal of Obama in these areas.

So far there has been a lot of fairly unpleasant ageism in this campaign. To be fair, I have seen a lot of it from Obama supporters, who sometimes go off on sniggering, snotty rants about McCain and his age. But I have also seen a great deal of ageism coming in the other direction, from older supporters of Clinton who seem consumed by envy and contempt toward the young. No doubt it is true that younger people do not always put in the kind of time and consistent commitment that older activists do. But it is notable that Obama constantly tries to remind younger supporters about the importance of hard work and perseverance in achieving change. And Obama has already succeeded in getting younger people to do something that young people have not done very much of before - show up and vote. We have seen various youth darlings come and go over the years. But almost invariably the fan club does not show up on election day. That's not what we're seeing this time, and we should celebrate Obama's success in getting younger people to take responsibility for their own futures and shoulder burdens.

I suppose Obama will never be able to overcome the "comfortable old shoe" complaint. Yes, it is true that we don't know Obama as well as public figures who have been around for ages. But he has been running for a year now, and has done an extraordinary amount to expose his life, views, experience and record to the public. Anybody who is willing to do their homework can find out just about everything they need to know. Electing someone President is not a bestowal of some sort of lifetime service award. It's about selecting the person who has what it takes to do the jobs that need to be done. Obama is proving in this campaign that he has the practical organizational skills, communication skills, worldly political smarts and solid grasp of global and domestic affairs to produce needed change and manage the executive branch of government. And he has especially proven that he possesses these crucial attributes: leadership, organizational discipline, boldness, perseverance, indefatigabilty and work ethic.

have you ever read Obama's autobiography?

It was all so pat, alarm bells were going off for me on nearly every page. My bullshit detector's needle nearly went off the dial. I had the feeling that a fictional character was being created from a life that could be told in a completely different way. I am always leery of people who explain themselves too well: it invariably means that much is being hidden.

His autobiography seems to me a veil, a smokescreen. What is normal is that a person accomplishes something extraordinary and then, practically by popular demand, writes an autobiography to set the record straight. It seems very strange to begin with an autobiography. What I have no doubt about is that Barack Obama is very, very intelligent. What I fear is that he is a very cynical, manipulative, bad man.

As to the references to Mussolini and Hitler, I merely stated that, "practical organizational skills, communication skills, worldly political smarts and solid grasp of global and domestic affairs to produce needed change and manage the executive branch of government." and "leadership, organizational discipline, boldness, perseverance, indefatigabilty and work ethic." could be as easily be applied to them as to Obama. They tell me nothing about the human being behind them at all.

What evidence do you believe shows Obama to be a bad man, in your words?

It sounds as though you come from the Passion is Inherently Bad school of social and political change.

Martin Luther King's actions generated a lot of "emotion mixed up with politics". Same with Ghandi. Same with Clara Barton and Louisa May Alcott. Same with Lech Walesa. Did their efforts lead to disaster? Are those pertinent--and persuasive--as counter-examples?

For that matter what positive social change against powerful defenders of an unjust status quo would you cite as having taken place absent a hefty dose of (channeled through effective leadership, to be sure) "emotion mixed up with politics"?

Passion run amuck surely can lead to horrific outcomes, and has many times in history. But is that inevitably, inherently the case? I don't think a fair read of history supports that view. Doesn't it depend on who is leading and for what purposes?

David, I'm far more concerned about who you are than about who Barack is.

I never thought I'd live to see the day that I agreed about anything with Charles
Krauthammer

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns-- boat, shoe, clock -- bycharging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched. And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.(...)Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.
Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

David Seaton, you're on a roll, but give us your sources and documentation for this comment:

"The Rovians and the Swiftboaters don't want to face the Clintons again and they are licking their chops waiting for Obama, they will do nothing to aid Hillary; when he is confirmed as the candidate, then you will begin to hear about Barack Obama."

To the contrary, what has been written and said far more often, by people "in the know" (need I give examples?), is that Republicans want Hillary Clinton to the the Democratic nominee because they relish the prospect of bringing up all the old baggage and dirt -- and perhaps new dirt, such as new and well-documented marital infidelities by Bill, who they would also cast as co-president-in-waiting, etc.

It is also quite likely that more Americans would resent and even be shocked by an ugly swift-boating of Obama than would be shocked by its being done to the Clintons.

So what are your sources or other indications that taking on the Clintons in the general election is no longer, or hasn't been, the Republican preference and strategy?

I am not saying here that Obama is ready to be president, although I am far from convinced that he would be any less ready by January 20 than Jack Kennedy was by his own inauguration. The question of readiness is separate from your claim that Republicans would prefer to oppose and attack Obama as, say, Charles Krauthammer has already done. Since Krauthammer is attacking Obama now, before the nomination has been decided, isn't it because he wants Clinton to be the Democratic nominee? Isn't he in synch with a Republican hope that she'll be the nominee so that Republicans can do against her the only thing they do well? I read Krauthammer's comment in that light. Tell us what you have that shows it isn't part of the Republican strategy.

I just want to say, as an aside, that this is one of the best collection of comments and debate I have read online EVER.

David Seaton, I also would love to know your source concerning "The Rovians and the Swiftboaters... licking their chops waiting for Obama."

I don't want to say to much just yet: I want to see we go from here!

David Seaton, you're on a roll, but give us your sources and documentation for this comment

I'm no fan of Hillary's I think Gore was the only real chance the Democrats has this year, but I think everything we could now about her is known.

I admit I am having some second thoughts on my theory's present validity on reading Krauthammer.

I detest Krauthammer, but he is very smart. With him, "every movement has a meaning". He seems to already have written off Hillary Clinton and is unloading on Obama. The idea is that Barack Obama is some sort of George McGovern with a cool tan.

David, what are your specific concerns about Obama? What do you think would happen if he were President?

David, do you think there is more racism in our country over the past, say, 20 years, less, about the same, different? Are your thoughts on that part of your sense of hopelessness? Do you think it is impossible to over-estimate the racism of the American people?

This leads to some strange attitudes. For example my maternal great grandmother was Irish from Dublin, the boxer, Mohammad Ali's maternal great grandfather was Irish from Dublin too. Ali is loquacious, poetic, pugnacious, brave and funny. Irish, no? No, of course not, he is "black". Ha, ha! But if I say that I am Irish nobody laughs, and I can't fight my way out of a paper bag... I would say that as long as nobody would think to say how "Irish" Mohammad Ali is, America is a racist country.

Is it "too soon" for a "black" man to be President of the United States?

Well, it is fair to say that it is much too soon for most white men or women to be president, so black people wouldn't be any readier either.

Having said that, I think it is important to also say that Barack Obama is not the first "black" man to be considered for the job. Not too many years ago, General Colin Powell was being talked about very seriously for the job and certainly before Bush spoiled him, few would have argued that he was not qualified for it. If we look at the field this year, Powell might be considered overqualified. He certainly has a thicker CV than any recent candidate. And a record of proven judgment: certainly if the "Powell Doctrine" had been adhered to, the USA would have never invaded Iraq. I think that if he were a Democrat he would have been president already by now.

David, what are your specific concerns about Obama? What do you think would happen if he were President?

"Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."

David Seaton, I read the link to Wolcott's item in Vanity Fair, but that you and he agree doesn't get us anywhere. It's circular. It doesn't make any clearer why you're certain that Republicans want Obama to be the nominee.

It's probably wiser to assume that Obama, while crafty, is operating more from good faith than from cynical calculation. He's vague about many things; and he has to be vague to have any hope of getting elected. Trying to assess him involves falling back on one's own seasoned intuitions and understanding of politics. Obama's swooning young crowds are one thing; those of us who have decided to bet on his canny wisdom, integrity and untested executive skills do it with eyes wide open, and with some canny wisdom of our own. Could we still be wrong? Yes. Could the alternatives be even wronger? We think so.