The guy is world class.

His Africa trip was headline stuff around the world. Think JFK does Ireland for the new millenium.

There's a reason international media almost outweighed US media at Obama's NH rally...I mean Democratic Party rally in NH.

If NH visit was to see if there's real interest in an Obama candidacy...he's running...you don't get any more "interest" than he did.

Loved the NH Democratic gov's comment (link is from UK newspaper in case you were wondering if Obama had a reach).

"We originally scheduled the Rolling Stones," he said, "but we cancelled them when we realised Senator Obama would sell more tickets." He was rewarded with an outbreak of ecstatic whooping. But behind his joke there was a truth. Barack Obama had indeed sold the tickets - the ballroom of the Radisson hotel in Manchester was packed, its 1,500 tickets sold out.

I'll admit, there are a lot of people who think it's high time we had a black President, so there is a dimension of that to people wanting to see Obama succeed.  But that's only one part of it.  If that were the whole thing, why weren't we fawning over Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely-Braun last time around?

As I said above, if he is a lightweight, there's plenty of time to figure that out.  To be honest, I was pretty anti-Obama solely because of his lack of experience.  But then I saw him speak, and he changed my mind.

He didn't have much in the way of rhetorical flourish.  He didn't shout.  He didn't talk in sound bytes or slogans.  He just spoke conversationally, about American history, about the Democrats' place in it, about the way Americans have always struggled to make the country a better place and and have always succeeded in the long run.  By the end of it, I was thinking, "damn, no wonder everyone's crazy about this guy."

He doesn't have Clinton's smoothness.  He doesn't need it.  There was no sizzle there - it's all steak.  For years, our culture has been serving up an idealized US President - one who speaks his mind, stands up for what he believes in, is in touch with the common man, has moral authority and a vision of how to lead the country.  We watch Jed Bartlett and David Palmer and any number of movie commanders-in-cheif and think, "why can't he be the real President?"  Obama's closer to that mold - the idealized, movie President - than any real-life politican I've seen.  Which is why we're projecting so much hope onto him.

And at the end of the day, he is still inexperienced.  But I think if you're smart enough, and have a strong enough vision, and the willingness to stick to your guns, you can overcome inexperience.  Lincoln was a ex-Congressman who had served only two terms.  FDR was governor of New York for just over a year when he got the nomination, and had been out of politics for years before becoming governor.

I'm starting to think that youth and idealism are going to serve the Democrats better than experience.  We won so big in 2006 because we were able to make a break with the past.  The Democrats who swept both houses of Congress weren't the DLC, Republican-lite, waffling, mediocre Dems who have rolled over for George Bush the last six years.  These were people willing to take the fight to the GOP in all fifty states, and who will keep fighting for the people, and keep fighting to make America great again.

If people see that in Obama, better to run him and prop him up with more experienced people than run a Democrat from the old guard who, let's face it, lost every national election of the past 25 years that didn't have Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket.

The Republicans learned something back in 1980 that we still haven't caught on to.  The President just has to be the salesman.  On the campaign trail, he needs to sell himself, his ideas and his party (or herself, etc.).  In office, he needs to sell his agenda to Congress and to the country.  And if he's capable of writing that agenda himself, great.  But if not, (see Reagan, Bush Jr), surround him with people who will.  JFK called them "the best and the brightest."

In the last two elections, we ran intelligent, competent, experienced public servants who couldn't sell beer at a frat party.  (Gore's gotten better, but at the time?  Oy.)  Let's run someone who can actually sell our ideas for a change.  Someone who can clearly spell out what the Democrats stand for, and what America stands for.  And if that person needs some help carrying out the agenda he can articulate so well, fine - we've got a deep bench.

Because ultimately, in 2008 we're not just electing a president.  We're electing a Secretary of State, and Defense, and one or two Supreme Court justices, federal judges all over the country, and federal employees of every stripe; we're letting Howard Dean help steer the nation's agenda; we're giving Reid and Pelosi someone to sign off on their legislation; we're pushing for national health care, higher wages, less outsourcing, we're fighting climate change, and trying (God knows how) to fix the mess in Iraq.  Hell, maybe we'll even start looking for Osama bin Laden, eight years too late.

We can do all of that and more.  We can remake the wreck of a country handed to us by George Bush, and create a nation that is once again the envy of the world.  All we need are the keys to the White House.  And honestly, I don't give a damn who has experience, or even who, in an ideal world, would do the best job.  I just want us to pick whoever's going to get us those keys.

It's not merely about his race -- it's the whole package... namely, his bio... the son of an African immigrant and a white Kansas woman; his reportedly mixed up youth, including the separation of his parents; his eventual entrance to an Ivy League law school, where he became the first "African-American" (some would argue that his label is now quite accurate, considering his father is an African immigrant and his mother white; though, arguably, his "experience" in America resembled that of a multigenerational African-American male -- given that observers see an "African-American," and not the first generation son of an African immigrant).  Obama's bio makes many feel good about America, and about what he -- as a brand -- says about those that support him.  The Obama brand, to his supporters, says, Hey, aren't I great, I'm open minded, I embrace diversity and I'm part of this great narrative by supporting the continued ascendance of this "American Dream" candidate.

Anyhow, this is my take on the Obama bandwagon that we're witnessing right now.  Frankly, I'm not taken over by the "hype," since I find most his statements pure platitudes and, for my tastes, I've felt that on some instances he's pandered to conservatives in his "exploratory" quest to obtain the presidency (for example, his vote in support of the 700 mile wall along the Mex/US border).

As for his great bio narrative.  I don't find it as compelling as a lot of his early supporters.  I guess I don't find Obama's bio narrative compelling, because -- in my experience -- it's not as exceptional it is to many. Let me illustrate, on paper, some my find my bio compelling (though, granted, not as full of achievements as Obama's, since I don't have an Ivy League education, nor do I have the title of Senator before my name), at any rate: I was born in a small Central American country, my dad was killed when I was 9 during my country's civil war; my mother then immigrated to the US where she spent the next 2 years, till she could go back to her country to bring her three kids with her to the US; at age 12 I entered US schools not speaking a word of English (my first English phrase was, Sorry, I speak no English -- which I would tell people on the street to explain why I couldn't answer fully when they asked me something); at age 17 I joined the Marine Corps, which my younger brother joined too; after leaving the service I completed a BA at UCLA, and I'm now -- I would say -- fully immersed.  Yes, as I granted earlier, my bio does not raise to Obama's stature, in terms of accomplishments, but some find it interesting.  As I mentioned earlier, in my experience, I've known many folks who have similar bio narratives (immigrants that have put themselves through school; immigrant mothers, my mother, that washed other people's restrooms just so that their kids could eat, etc) and that's why Obama' narrative is not enough for me to buy into the current hype surrounding him.  Now, add to that what I consider his mere platitudes and his, granted, alleged pandering to conservatives, and, frankly, I see all the hype as mere distractions.

I was disappointed to read that Feingold dropped out, and now I'm pulling for Edwards.

What I think he meant was, McCain was the GOP's rock star in 2000, but they ran the establishment guy instead and still won.

"But one thing is for sure, it'll be someone with REAL experience, so that eliminates Edwards and Obama."

Like...oh Bush Jr with one term as Texas Governor?

History is against your theory if you are basing it on some kind of seniority system.  US works on "new man" basis, not the "old Europe" senior man system.

JFK had less "experience" than Nixon...and won.

Obama will have less "experience" than McCain...and win.

No party has ever had an election year in which they didn't lose a single seat.  Yes, the Democrats have slim majorities in both houses, but that was after being in a huge hole in both, and running in a system where gerrymandering makes only a handful of seats competitive.  I can't imagine how the Democrats could have possibly had a better election than they did - I mean, what the hell did you expect them to do?

And Pelosi downplaying "liberal programs" is BS.  "Liberal" has become such a scare word she's distancing herself from it, while making her first order of business raising the minimum wage.

And Bush has made such a mess of Iraq that God himself couldn't provide an easy solution to it.  But the Democrats have had more ideas (phased troop withdrawl, partition, turning everything over to NATO) than the Republicans endless chorus of "stay the course."

The only part of your post I agree with is that it might be someone we haven't thought of yet.  Clinton came out of nowhere.  Then again, this is a much stronger, more crowded field.  If someone can come out of nowhere and push aside Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Obama, possiblly Gore, and a few well-known governors, they'd be the greatest politician in decades, and would well deserve the nomination.

If Barack was really worth 5 points in a CT senate race, then maybe the hype is underselling Obama?

Umm... don't you have to run in order to be the next President?  Or are you expecting Bush and Cheney to be killed in a freak accident?

> Bush's presidency has shown us that we can't just pick someone with a message and an image who promises to put together a "good team."

Au contraire.  The fact that Bush made it into office at all showed us that we can't depend on someone who's incredibly qualified, experienced and smart to win if they can't sell themselves.  And does anyone seriously believe that Obama, or any Democrat for that matter, would surround themselves with a rogues' gallery of incompetents and crooks like Bush did?  Come on!

I'd rather have an "empty suit" who can run a winning campaign, that leads to four years of signing Reid and Pelosi's bills, putting liberal judges on the Supreme Court, and putting competent, principled, experienced people in positions of power throughout the federal government, than have another experienced, qualified candidate who tanks the general election and keeps the GOP in power for another four years.