Yes, just one more fable about Obama.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=9

Obama’s friends were not surprised when, in 1999, he decided to challenge Bobby Rush, who has represented the South Side in Congress since 1992. Rush had run against Daley in the 1999 mayoral primary, and Obama interpreted Rush’s defeat in that citywide race as a harbinger of his declining popularity in his congressional district.

Obama lost by thirty-one points—a humiliating defeat. On Election Night, at the Ramada Inn where he had begun his political career, he sounded dejected, hinting that he might leave politics.

Qwerty: I have no objection to people who say "Obama could lose." Of course, he could lose -- and our apprehensions about that possibility should be usefully channeled into action.

I object to people who dwell on anxiety instead of action, and use the anxiety to fuel a bunch of unproductive games. Basically, they're all variations on the Classic Dem. game, "circular firing squad."

It's not a game I've seen you play. But this is why people like NCSteve complain about the Chicken Little dance. The dance is about blame as much or more than fear. In posts of this sort, you start seeing phrases like "This happens every time . . ." "Obama's got to realize that . . ." "Serves them right for . . ." "We're doomed unless . . ."

Like I say, I don't think it's your preferred game. But you'll see a lot of people playing it.

I prefer Steve's approach: "the wind is at our backs, people, but there are no guarantees, so keep paddling."

On the other hand, I'm off taking a break, I guess, until I see signs of life stirring in Obama's camp, or when the Sky's fallen. The weirdness scares me, the Matrix references, the Faith, the Alternate Reality where Polls only count when they show Obama ahead... too much of a flashback to 2004. It's one thing to believe in the goodness of your candidate but another to express certainty where there's none, as if we inhabit the best of all possible worlds. My outlook is more Voltaire than Candide.

In the end, I'm under no delusion - Obama is *only* a political animal like any other. I'm voting for him because he seems less evil and more competent than the other alternatives. I hope that he exceeds my expectations, that's *hope*, not faith. As it is only "hope", I'm willing to buttress it with more tangible investments to make it more, not less "hopeful". In politics, I trust only Kucinich, Howard Dean and Ron Paul to be the persons they declare themselves to be.

I don't know if things *will* get better under Obama, I lack that blind faith, but I know for certain that they would get worse under McCain.

That's all I'm willing to bet on.