"And this veteran of a few presidential campaigns is more than a little amused at how many Obama supporters there are who fervently believe and yes, proselytize about how Obama's going to "change everything." ....politicians are almost certain to break your heart."

As a younger Obama supporter, I know this to be true, but I can't figure out why it's a good reason to vote for an older more cynical candidate. There's too much pressure for change this year. So let's vote for Obama. He may let us down, but he's got the best shot at providing change of any of the three remaining candidates.

There's a stance among Obama's critics that we're all "Obamabots" and we don't see his inexperience, or we don't see some of the risks in electing him. I think I do see those risks, but I just don't see how Clinton or McCain are better choices at this moment in history.

I'm a direct beneficiary of the pre-existing condition change and in that, among many other things I do believe that there was progress made during WJC's presidency.

I am an ardent Obama supporter for reasons I won't detail here (as to not hijack your meaningful post).

However, I do want to say that I appreciate your post and even though I am for Obama I absolutely appreciate HRC's strengths and the achievements for our country under WJC.

Thank you for sharing!

Obama may as you predict fail to bring about the change we desire. But at least he will try. That is more than we can say for the other candidates. They have given up even before the battle is joined.

Abraham Lincoln served two years in congress, and seemed to do pretty good.

He was the President of the Harvard Law review. How did he do that? "Obama won by convincing liberals and conservatives alike of the strength of his intellect, the soundness of his judgment and the merit of his vision." (WAPO)

Eight years in the IL. Senate. Worked on ethics reform, middle class tax cuts and the use of camera in police vehicles.

Two years in the US. Senate. Ethics reform, congressional transparency (public access to web-based database of Congressional spending), and passed the Luger-Obama legislation that "expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction."

State Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. "And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

He has been beat up on by that great political genius, Bill Clinton, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who Bill tells us is even a greater politician than him, and yet you wonder if Senator Obama has the right stuff.

We shall see, but if two famous Clintons, one a two term President, can not stop him, then that should lead one to conclude that Senator Obama has more of the right stuff than Senator Clinton.

John War Monger McCain has fire in the belly. I prefer that Senator Obama has fire in the Mind and Soul.

P.S. Welcome to the party, DKDC! What with all you former Clintonites coming over, we're starting to run low on Kool-Aid, but we saved some for you ...

We all thought Dukakis would win. All the polls showed him beating Bush badly. He was ahead by close to 20 points after the nomination in Bradley-effect-less polls.

In the primaries he didn't seem so far left. So many things did not come up as an issue then. When people tried to blame different tactical blunders (the tank) for his loss, Susan Estrich (his campaign chairperson) said. "Look. Michael's views on many issues were just too liberal for mainstream voters to accept him.
Philosophical opposition to the death penalty, being on the record for strong gun control, affirmative action and other things killed him."

And for once, I hope, the Democratic candidate won't essentially be telling progressives and African-Americans, "Thanks for your votes. See you in four years.

Word.

And I agree he's not as progressive as I'd like either, but I too want to see him elected. As much as I'd love to think Russ Feingold could be president, or Barney Frank - I know better. And not because Barney's gay - it's because he's so liberal.

But I'm going to be watching him too because as a progressive, I'm fed up with being disregarded until they want my money and my vote. I think we'll all be watching. :)

Thanks for this diary. I appreciate Bill a lot more now that I understand his work on Health Care portability and Direct Loans. As a long-time Obama supporter, this campaign has reminded me of all the things that bothered me about those days. As soon as Hillary stops suggesting that pledged delegates need not be bound to the candidates that they pledged to support and the voters they were selected to represent, and accepts reality here, I'll be able to get back to all the positive things that had me talking in 2007 about how great our choices were.

I really feel like Hillary can accomplish more as Senate Majority Leader than she could as president. I don't think the country needs its president to kick the crap out of the opposition. I'd rather see a good-cop/bad-cop one-two punch of President and Majority Leader. President Obama would create popular demand for our positions, and Majority Leader Clinton would leverage this strong demand to make sure the final legislation had all the important details covered. Obama, Hillary, and Pelosi would make an amazing triple threat, and having two women running both chambers of congress in concert with a black president would redefine the term "historic". Especially if Sebelius was Vice President.

Thanks for the comments.

Can we remember the executive is, properly speaking, only the administrator? Teddy Roosevelt's bully pulpit is not the natural definition of president. Congress will stil be the deciding venue. Arm-twisting presidents can't exceed the existing politics by more than a little bit.

But Obama looks to have more down-ticket effect, in a more diffuse and less concentrated-power way. That is not a trivial point, since everything that happens after an election is affected by who helped out getting there. The fewer fat cats that need payback, the greater freedom to change course in response to actual popular sentiment.

I felt, early on, that Obama was actually a sounder general-election bet than Clinton, in spite of her familiarity. That works two ways, and in my case there was an added issue---rather than it being deserved, I think it is greedy for the same family to return to the White House. Let someone else have a chance.

I love your perspective.

I know he'll break my heart, I was fooled by Clinton too. But I think he's worth the risk. I fully expect him to make mistakes; all Presidents do. But I also think he will be surprising, and this is the part I am looking forward to. It's true he could fail miserably, and I accept this possibility. But I desperately want us, once, just once, to make our best choice. Not our safest choice, not our obviously mediocre choice, not the choice that I know in my gut will lose, but really put our best one forward. And if he fails . . . . ah, so be it. It's better to die trying, or really try at least once. That's how I feel about this election.

And no, I don't think that Barack will change everything. That's ridiculous. But Obama thinks better than me. This is important, and this is rare for me -- to listen to a politician with better analysis and answers than my own. Usually I vote for the one that gets closest. I'm not being arrogant here, just frank.

Perhaps Obama doesn't want the Presidency as pathalogically as Clinton does, but I think he's got plenty of fire in his belly. And more importantly, he's cool under pressure. That's what we need with the crap the Republicans are gonna throw at him, that's what we need in this difficult time in national history. And even though I accept the possibility that he could fail, I have some measure of confidence that he will not. From my vantage points he's shown extraordinarily good judgement on national matters. For all his supposed inexperience, he's running a fabulously efficient and successful multi-million dollar business right now (his campaign). He has a leadership style that garners respect, with his willingness to work with, and work it out with, his opposition instead of demonizing and political gaming. And, oratory skills to die for! (convincing at the least.) I see no reason for his consistently strong showing in Judgement, Management and Leadership to falter.

It's not Obama's campaign that has unleashed such violent rejection of the Clintons. They've done it to themselves. I agree with you that there were very good things about Bill Clinton's presidency. I met Hillary Clinton while in high school, was smitten, and was a loyal Clinton supporter for a long time. But the Clintons have lied so much during this campaign alone; Hillary herself seems to really believe that the end justifies the means. It's all too plain to me now, and I do not agree with her. I can't buy into that kind of politics. Even if she would be a better president than McCain, I cannot, and will not, reward that kind of politics with my vote. My little tiny power. What's more insidious is that somehow, without us noticing, the Clintons have really taken control of the Democratic Party. Somewhere along the line it became the Bill and Hillary Clinton Party. Well, it's our party and it's time to wrest it back, time for them to loose the grip.

Night night,

Lali

Nicely written... thanks for the 'nice' things...

I would like to share that I while I have been an Obama supporter since before he decided to run... it was based on purely practical information. I've studied typologies. Now I know that people generally don't like being put in a box but they can be very useful references. I saw Senator Obama speak at some event on Cspan one day and i recognized first of all that he has a rare typology that gives him natural leadership skills for projects on a grand scale. And this rare typology is coupled with a less rare social/community/orator's personality. As I listened to his speech I recognized his level of awareness... an ability to try to look at problems from a new level. Having embraced the adage that no problem can be solved on the same level in which it was created, I recognized this as an advanced approach. I also noticed his ability to hold paradoxes very well... another advancement... I have heard him speak as I do about the tension between our need for security and desire for liberty. These paradoxes must be clearly recognized in order to find the healthy place of tension or tolerance for these two strong desires. This is the where Obama can bridge polarity of republican and democrat... they usually polarize around some real paradoxes but distort them to try to have one be more 'RIGHT' or 'LEFT' than the other.
Anyway, I don't expect Senator Obama to be perfect. Let's face it he's walking into a very messed up situation as president next year. It's not going to be a cake walk. BUT I do expect him to do his best to live up to his own ideals and I expect the same of myself. I see how I am doing so I think I can be realistic... although I am hoping he will do better than I am...

I just wanted to share some grounded, practical energy about this very inspiring, brilliant man because everyone seems to suggest that you must have your head in the clouds and be dazzled by his charm to be supporting him.
Senator Obama has charm AND the man has substance.

Really? You thought Dukakis would win? Sorry to focus on that one sentiment but I have always wanted to meet someone who thought Dukakis had a shot at winning. I was pretty young during that election and so my thoughts on it were maybe a tag shallow, but it seemed to me like a foregone conclusion that he would lose because, one, say it: President Dukakis. Nope. Not a chance. And the beetle brow? And short stature? And the funny haircut? Not presidential. I am not a deep thinker (in case you can't tell) but I was right about Dukakis!

I know the comment wasn't directed at me, but I'm such a dope, hell, I thought *Tsongas* could win. Somehow got over the disappointment and worked for Bill later. Still hurts, Paul not showing up for that NY parade that we were all so sure was gonna mark his re-entry into the race. Oh, to be young and aspirational again. Oh well, I've made my peace with having become old and cynical and will dutifully pull that lever for Obama.

Dukakis... ah, those were the days! Excitement in the air! I remember voting for him, punching out that chad, and feeling like I was committing some sort of futile act of joyless masturbation...

You're all reminding me of why I'm actually excited about Obama. We understand that he's not going to be perfect, probably won't be able to deliver on all promises, will be running into unforeseen messes. He won't fit anyone's ideology 100%.

But he delivers the inspiration, he's got guts, he's great at political judo (manages to not be disingenuous when on the attack, always gets it back to the issue), and he seems honest, not a phony. He showed he can take a big damaging hit and turn it all around with a speech. He's set records getting hoards of cynics like me to actually give him money.

I remember hearing of this rising star with the African name, and assumed he'd stay representing his urban area. Then I walked in on his speech at the 2004 convention. My wife was watching, I sat down next to her, and when he was done -- I'm not pretending to be any sort of heavy prognosticator here -- I told her "I think we just saw the first black president."

Spooky!

Kerry seemed so... Dukakisy after that. Obama looked like the future, we'd probably see him run in 2016, I thought.

And Kerry lost to Chuckles.

I got involved in 2006 as a Dem volunteer, so I don't know: What's it like to work for a candidate that shoots for the middle ground, who does everything the traditional, safe, focus-grouped way, and then see him lose? I know I won't be doing much other than voting if Clinton actually gets the nomination. But I'm planning on hitting the phones and the streets for Obama.

I don't hold the entire Congress responsible, after all, there were 133 Representatives and 23 Senators who did oppose the war at the outset. For those representatives and a few of the Senators, this was courageous indeed - elections were just three weeks down the road.

Robert Byrd, who by his own admission had tragic errors in judgment in his younger days regarding Civil Rights, was a true Statesmen as he delivered one of the most passionate, well reasoned and quite prophetic floor speeches I have ever heard.

But no doubt about, when you have a bunch of pusillanimous ninnies like Hillary who cast votes without without giving due diligence to the work required to make the accurate assessment and analysis to even allow for an amendment that would force the double check - yeah 2/3rds of Congress were accomplices to mass murder, torture and other grave physical and psychological injuries by the untold thousands.

Of course they had to whore the treasury too, and later - fail to make meaningful inquiries into allegations of fraud and failures of sorts still not fully totaled that led to still more unnecessary death.

Obama has already brought tremendous change. He has encouraged supporters to run the nastiest campaign in History and has brought back the woman's movement at least 20 years. Who thought he could get his supporters to cheer while calling a couple of women that do not agree with Obama F*cking Wh*res. Wonderful.