Thanks for this link to Barnett's brilliant Tocquevillesque examination of Barack Obama.

I have no business stepping into the ring with someone of Barnett's intellect (who, I must confess, I had never heard of before reading this). So rather than parse some of his points, I'll just share how they relate to my own thoughts about Clinton v. Obama.

In trying to decide who to support, like many I've been torn between the practicality of Clinton and the promise of Obama.

I'm touched but not seduced by Obama's speeches, like many of his supporters appear to be.

There was, however, a speech that he gave in Idaho before Super Tuesday that sticks with me, not because of its words, but because of who was listening to them.

The crowd was very close to Obama as he gave his speech, and behind him you could see the faces of just about every demographic of American society, including Native-Americans.

It looked like they could have been picked out of central casting. If it was a Bush speech I would assume they had been.

Electing Obama would demonstrate my belief that American politics, and its culture in general, operate under the Newtonian Law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, the rubber band has been stretched to its limit and its snapping back.

I can't imagine a president more diametrically different than the one currently claiming that office, then Obama. And I like what that message would send to the rest of the world.

Obama's presidency may not deliver the colon-cleansing America's body-politic desperately needs, but Barnett gives solid evidence that it's our best shot.

First off, as a longtime Obama supporter and contributor, I am awfully glad that his candidacy, which at the outset seemed such a long shot, has made one of the really astounding political insurgencies of modern US politics. Indeed, looked at from the standpoint of as little as two months ago, let alone a year ago, it just wasn't smart money to bet on him getting the nomination.

But those negatives about Hillary are out there, and not just among Limbaugh-worshipping
'dittoheads' who think W Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And the personal qualities of Obama (lacking in the demographically based candidate, Edwards) have certainly shown that there is serious capability of a winner -- as well as, I would insist, a leader in office as well.

Looking at the horserace aspect of the election at this point, and how Obama's "appeal" could play out, my main concerns as to the nomination are that the Superdelegates remain a wild card, so that there remains substantial uncertainty unless Obama is not only able to come out of the campaign (bracketing MI and FL) with a lead in raw votes and pledged delegates, as seems more than likely, but with a COMMANDING lead. This difference may seem subtle, but it isn't to the political actors in this situation. Obama needs to get to a point in the primary season where it is clear that Hillary Clinton, mathematically, simply cannot catch up (other than w/Superdelegates rallying behind her) and then the party (even if not HRC) can rally behind Obama WELL BEFORE the Convention.

Then there's the general. It would seem that beating McCain should be easier than coming from WAY behind as a candidate barely known at the mass level -- all that is needed is to remind the mass voting public DAILY of McCain's program to stay in Iraq until the cows come home, INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR THE BURDEN THAT TRILLIONS IN FURTHER COSTS WILL PLACE ON OUR ALREADY STRUGGLING ECONOMY. "Get Real and Get Out" is the slogan for 2008.

But there remains this issue of the attack machine Obama is likely to face. In various quarters, including Democratic Underground (which I have been following daily for months), the main meme now in support of HRC/opposition to Obama is that Obama will not be able to withstand the inevitable withering attacks that are sure to come, while Hillary has been somehow "pre-deflated". It is, in this 'frame' like comparing an already dried fruit with a fresh one about to go through the drying process. Hillary, by this logic, may have much higher negatives now, but Obama, when the inevitable attacks come, will have even WORSE ones, and will have a harder time catching up. It is quite curious how MANY political observers buy into this hypothetical. What it says about the GENERIC fear of the RW and its ability to sway the masses is rather frightening -- but that doesn't make it false.

My own view is, well, Obama may indeed get hit and hit hard by the proven politics of Swiftboating. But there is no reason that I have found convincing that he would even likely fail to fight back (as Kerry failed in the face both of swiftboating and of the flipflop spin (the latter being an area of bizarre silence for many months also from the MSM); and there is no reason that Obama, if tarnished in the public eye relative to the present situation, will reach the level of high negatives that HRC has UNIQUELY achieved among major Democrats. It is true that Dukakis went down the same tubes as are projected by some for Obama, and that the general public rejection of Gore and Kerry remain to this day, but none of these were candidates with Obama's positive qualities, including his appeal.

In short, there are few things so arbitrary as a selective "pragmatism" or skepticism, one that sees one kind of danger (to Obama) but somehow discounts another. This "selective hardheadedness", the basis of phenomena like what C Wright Mills termed "crackpot realism" in military matters, seem to be the essence of conservative as well as mainstream Democratic naysayers, whether it is on environmental issues & eco-industrialization, on matters of war and peace, on full employment programs or what-have-you. Being "realistic" as some are about Obama but somehow creating a jury-rigged ramshackle construct of optimism about Hillary Clinton is the real balance of opinion, not that the supporters of Obama are all 'starry eyed' and mesmerized teeny boppers, as a rather shabby current meme would have it.

And yes, it is OBVIOUS that Obama is not Kucinich and is not Nader -- if he were he would simply be unelectable in the general, given all the forces at work. But he does, as much as any reasonably likely Democratic nominee in THIS election, or in any of the recent elections (for at least about 20+ years) have a collection of qualities that seem to be about as good as it gets in terms of electing/installing presidents in this country in this era goes.

I do NOT count myself among those who have supposedly filled the vessel "Obama" with hopes and dreams that he simply does not embody. My support is what DSAers like to call "critical support", but it is INSISTENT critical support.
Not having someone like McCain in for another four years is a hard imperative from my standpoint.