I'm not sure if I'm willing to conclude that what you've described are the facts of Barack Obama and his campaign, but I think your analysis is warranted. It is a cynical point of view and it's completely justified by history both near and distant.

There have been many moments while, watching Obama speak, I've thought to myself, "Obama, you'd better be for real." Part of me really, really wants to believe that he can genuinely bring about progressive changes, but there's another part of me that can't simply this prima facie. It's always been a little too easy to get along in politics by talking a good game and we should always be skeptical of what we're hearing as wary of who's saying it.

I guess in that way Obama's campaign is a campaign on hope. I really hope that he's not full of it. :)

Care to discuss how you see respect for liberty, law, limitations on executive and corporate power part of the Bush/Clinton/Reagan legacy?

Should be fascinating.

I think we need a change from that.

JMO.

Best, Terry

What is truly important and essential is the awakening and the energy conjured by Bush and all he represents and what I see in the Obama "movement" is the system's endless siphoning off of that energy and its singing a lullaby for the newly awakened.

Obama's "movement" is just another part of the endless manipulation that all Americans suffer from the day they are plunked down wearing diapers in front of TV set.

You're bordering on silly now.

The one thing that shouldn't be discounted is the millions of people that Obama has brought into politics, and into the voting booth.

If he had been a two term governor of Illinois and had "changed" Illinois. I would be whole lot less skeptical. Three years in the Senate are not enough to believe his capacity to deliver on such huge promises.

So are you implying that Clinton really has that much more substantive experience? She actually has less actually legislative experience. She does have first lady experience, which he doesn't. I'm not sure how much that counts for anything.

It's actually an important point -- if you're saying that *neither* candidate on the Dem side is experience enough for your comfort level, that, then, would seem to be more sensible and logical.

But you're only criticizing here; not offering the alternative argument.

David,

if you read me carefully you will not that I don't think politicians are really the instruments for change. First society changes and the politicians tag a long.

I don't have great argument with that but I do think there are many examples of the heroic version of history as opposed to some version of predestination.

Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorite examples. His later failure with Bull Moose Party argues for your point.

I simply don't believe that Obama will really change anything, even if he is sincere, which I have no reason to doubt.

I disagree even if Obama has us all duped. :-)

There is a very real change in the way he is being funded. I don't believe the Hillary dictum that corporations and lobbyists are just like you and me.

If he had been a two term governor of Illinois and had "changed" Illinois. I would be whole lot less skeptical. Three years in the Senate are not enough to believe his capacity to deliver on such huge promises.

From my perspective the lack of promises is more the problem rather than lack of experience - which I discount entirely - admittedly the latter is arguable.

The problem, for instance, with health care proposals is exactly that Kucinich enunciated. None are even adequate. None are universal. All promise little to correct horrendous problems in a very primitive, vastly expensive system.

Obama says one-payer is better but the country isn't ready for it. Didn't stop Harry Truman from proposing such a system to a Republican-led Congress. He failed but I much prefer Truman's approach. If Obama succeeds in this, we will be little better off I think. Remember that Medicare is one-payer. Who would prefer Obama's or Hillary's plans as bad as Medicare is?

Best, Terry

I write a post about Obama that touches on some of this discussion:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/is-obama-too-much-talk-and-not.php

Look at Obama compaed to the last two nominees - the Democrats keep putting up policy wonks who cannot connect with voters on an emotional level. Obama has a much more progressive record than Clinton and he can sell a progressive agenda to middle America.

At the same time, no one should believe that President Obama will somehow make everything better in America.

No question in my mind though that Obama will be the most progressive Presidential nominee in decades.

David, are you posturing that having a really bad President in office generates the only kind of voter energy and contemplation we can hope for from Americans? I don't get where you're going, but I sure hope it's not there! Good grief...how wrong you'd be.

Actually the USA hasn't changed all that much, it is extraordinary how "classic" it has become. The different fashions twirl about the surface, but since the end of segregation and the sexual revolution, nothing major except perhaps microwave popcorn has occurred. The Internet, you say? The Internet has made Americans even more American. It has highlighted the best and the worst of the country, not changed it.

However, Spain, where I live, has changed out of all recognition. In only 30 years it has gone from a fascist dictatorship controlled by the Catholic church to a democratic country where homosexual marriage is legal and you can roll a joint and smoke it openly in the street. It was observing the Spanish transition that I learned that the society changes long before the politicians do.

As to my sitting on the sidelines, well yes, I'm an old fart now, but when I was young I manned the phones and ran the mimeograph machine for many a worthy cause, most of which have vanished from the face of this earth. Now I am privileged to earn my bread and cheese writing about politics. i try to do that the best I can.

My advice is to the young. Get involved in grassroots politics. Join unions, "organize," in the words of Joe Hill. Change the society from the ground up... change the politicians, literally and figuratively... don't dream that any politician is going to be the solution to the country's problems as our dear leader says, "You are what you've been waiting for"... Not him.

Yes, by implication, you are endorsing Hillary which places you in the slightly delusional category for thinking she will be the one to get any version of health care passed that won't continue the domination of the insurance companies. Indeed her mandating proposal guarantees it.

That she's "a known quantity" is hardly reason to give her benefit of the doubt. In fact it's more reason to doubt what with her demonstration of support for nearly every neocon proposition pushed through Congress by Bush.

I'm sort of joking. I like Barack, I'm not in love with him.

I don't think he's the second coming. I do think he's our best option left and will be a dramatic change for America (in a good way).

Parting shot, as the commenter you quote without attribution: Obama is the more likely to win, so any crack that can be opened will be opened sooner than if Clinton loses.