You might parse the details. But for me, what makes them different is philosphical. Obama grace is not just rhetorical, he harnesses the force of the electorate. (A real version of Bush’ political capitol.) Hillary wants you to know that she will use her network of friends to fight on our behalf. (That’s less graceful, since they’re not your friends.) Once president, I think Obama will have many new friends, so his potential seems much greater.

I don’t like David Brooks much, but his Super Tuesday OpEd in the NYTimes isn’t empty criticism. Have a look.

Regarding someone’s invocation of Carter’s failure, Hess suggested that he failed because he placed “greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself.” In comparison, Obama is not light on content, in fact, he has imaginative policy ideas, and seems to have a clear governmental philosophy. Carter’s administration was demoralized by his blandness. Is Obama bland to you?

I just checked in with your blog after a break. I’m shocked to see how you just aren’t ‘getting it’ when it comes to the Obama campaign.

We’ve raised a whole generation of young people to participate via commerce. They only identify with something if it is a product they can buy into. The only way to engage them in politics is to create that product and offer them a chance to buy in. That’s the brilliance of the Obama campaign.

Now, if it were only a product, it would be meaningless - but it’s also a totally participatory and transparent campaign. It is grassroots, built entirely from the ground up, and the course of the campaign is determined by the people. This campaign, in all of it’s manifestations is democratic, it’s democratic in a way that politics hasn’t been before. The product that you are seeing, and dismissing, is only the packaging - it’s the doorway that gets young people involved. Once they are, they are let loose.

Signing up and participating with Obama’s campaign allows you to email anyone involved in the effort, nothing is filtered, no one is babysat. The campaign staffers are completely accessible, the campaign itself is in the hands of the people, the volunteers, the believers. This is a movement - and the passion is not about sound bites, but the sound bites do accurately represent the passion.

You’re missing the whole thing - you’re blind to the excitement, the engagement, the groundswell of interest in politics and issues that is bringing in a whole new generation of previously apathetic voters. If Democrats don’t recognize what this movement means and what it could mean - they risk loosing the white house this November.

We don’t want an executive to lead us - we want someone who will amplify our voices and give us the ability to reach into government. We don’t want someone who voted for the war and can’t admit it was a mistake, we want someone who was right about the war from the beginning and isn’t afraid to say it.

This campaign has nothing to do with Obama himself, it’s about us. I worked FOR Kerry/Edwards, I loved the Clintons - but for the first time in my life, I AM the campaign and I’m working for MY voice, MY vision, MY hopes.

You titled your response to the music video “Nice Beat. But can you lead to it?” You’re missing the whole point - we don’t WANT a leader. We’re done with leaders.

And change could also mean, not another phony pretender in the WH! Think about that.

You have a point here, Eric. So, what do you want? And then, what’s so great about Obama’s constant stomping for bipartisanship?

However, 100% ack about the Dems needing a supermajority, that would have a much higher impact on pushing Dem bills through than a president Obama may ever have. Amidst all that brouhaha about the presidential candidates, I fear that the important battles about Congress seats become all but forgotten…

With regard to “bipartisanship” and “reasonable bills,” there are competing interests.

It would be good for consumers and website owners for Congress to pass a Net Neutrality bill, which Obama supports.

It would be bad for the biggest ISPs for Congress to pass a Net Neutrality bill. That is why Republicans are blocking it.

Until we get more Democrats in the Senate, the Senate won’t pass such a bill. The good news is that there will be more Democrats in the Senate in 2009 than there are now.

Change to me means:

A different mindset on Iraq: compare Obama’s POV on Oct. 2, 2002 with Hillary’s on Oct. 10, 2002 - he saw that we were being duped, distracted from the real war and the struggle to address root causes. In her inability to admit a mistake, Hillary shows a stubborn-ness that not just Carter-esque - it is positively Bush-like.

A viable healthcare reform: rather than stick with the status quo or Hillary-care II, Obama lays out a plan that will supports those in greatest need (chronically ill, children) and works at reducing cost & offering coverage for all who want it. Look at his record in the Illinois house for a sense of how he delivered here.

A foreign policy that is both muscular & one we can be proud of: Obama was early to point out the risks still inherent in Pakistan and Afghanistan, arguing that the U.S. policy of non-recognition is a non-starter. Obama has worked on nuclear acountability around the globe since he entered the Senate.

Tech policy: He is staunchly in favor of net neutrality, and has promised to make it a priority to reinstate it in his first year in office. He has proposed intelligent programs for increasing technology education and access to children. He doesn’t believe the FCC went far enough in their proposed rules for opening up the 700MHz spectrum auctions. He wants to see increases in the number of H1-B visas given out each year. He strongly supports research into renewable energy sources and he has a realistic, market based approach to capping carbon emissions.

******how Obama will execute that vision
With transparency: he has consistently worked to make gov’t more transparent & accountable, he has accepted no campaign funds from PACs or lobbyists.

With broad support: look at how Obama has funded his campaign - more, smaller donations - compared to the Terry McAuliffe corp. gravy train.

With the support of new voices: spend a day with the young people who make up the Obama movement - our country sorely needs their optimism, their energy, their efforts

And I must add:

he will execute that vision WITHOUT BILL CLINTON in the White House
nominating the Clintons after the drama they put this country - and the Dem party - thru is reckless in my mind

Good point, Jeff! Yeah, really: Change what? Change, how?
Don’t y’all think it a bit strange that Obama never answered these questions?
Not to speak of that his Senate carreer isn’t really a glaring example of working for changes..

Eric, thx for reminding me, but, honestly, I was well aware of this. Actually, I know more about US politics than about what’s going on in my own country.

However, your argument describes a situation that’s perfect for bipartisanship. Obama, with all his charm, would only need to persuade about a dozen or so collegues to get any bill he endorses to become law. Well, now where are those examples of successful bipartisanship? Is Obama a lazy Senator who is not interested in pushing reasonable bills through, or is all his chatter of reaching across the aisle just empty brouhaha with no connection to reality? Either way, this is looking as though Obama isn’t quite like he pretends to be, right?

Fear is a powerful motivator - we have seen that over the last 7 years with Bush. I must say, watching Bill Clinton play fear in this race, as well as Hillary in New Hampshire, sealed the deal for me.

It is patronizing to refer to a candidate as naive - Hillary is not naive when she argues that universal health care is now a core Democratic principle, McCain is not naive when he says we will be in Iraq for 100 years, Huckabee….ok, maybe there is an exception to every rule.

The way Hillary approached health care as the co=president in Clinton I is a primary reason I can not support her. She was a combo of Cheney-esque secrecy, Rovian manipulation and the worst of the “we know better” that smugs Dems like me have practiced for far too long.