All good points. Personally I think Obama holds up. The "hype" on Obama is now two years old after his wake up call speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.

A solid primary run should give opponents (Democrats and Republicans) a chance to turn up some kind of show stopper background info. after that it's on to the White House.

McCain's painting himself into an "angry old man with a gun" corner on Iraq and Iran.

Agree.

And is some of it about race?  Yes.  I really think Americans are sick of 16 years of fighting (Clinton, then Bush).  They want someone they can stand behind, unified.

And Obama's race is symbolic for a lot of other healing.  

I agree- this is why we have primaries.  If Obama can survive the stage with Hillary, Edwards, Clark, Richardson, all of whom will have valid and interesting things to say (i.e. Richardson's credibility on foreign policy, Clark on the military)... if he pulls that one off... wow.

Or, third option, the hype doesn't fade but someone like Hillary still beats him out, and Democrats are suddenly the gang who can't even nominate their rockstar.

That said, Republicans dealt with that to some degree in 2000 and seemed to do alright, so we'll see.

Since Obama has shown nothing to merit any discussion of him as a serious presidential candidate (other than blow smoke up our liberal butts) I think it's a win for everyone to focus on him. That way, when Gore announces it will catch the beltway pundits by surprise (I would also add the Republicans, but I think they're smart enought to see that the Obama-rama has very little substance to it).

Besides the vote on screwing us over via reduced class action lawsuit rights, Obama also voted for the following horrendous bills (from here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr ess/members/o000167/key-votes/):

Vote 213: H R 6: Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution.

3/2/06     Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

He also voted to build that damned fence along the Mexican border.

This is your shining knight?

I agree with your general point. Looking back at 2004 there is this unsatisfactory sense to the sequence of events: the Dean campaign imploded largely due to lack of understanding of the territory, Clark was horribly underprepared, Edwards was young, new and while he grew over the course of the primaries he wasn't ready. So Kerry got the nomination because he was the only competent contender and then it turned out that despite being a really honourable guy, he wasn't a great campaigner.

This time around, whoever gets the nomination out of Obama, Edwards and Clinton (or Gore if he runs) will have had to do more than simply show up. And for Clark, Richardson, Bayh or one of the others to get the nomination they will have had to have run one of the most amazing campaigns ever.

If the race is going to be over by early March 2008, then you want to see candidates tested during 2007. Clinton, Edwards and now Obama seem to be running and I think we will learn a lot about them this year.

Though I would say that Clark, Richardson and Bayh have already failed my competency test (which is to take the race seriously and do enough preparation to give yourself a chance) and Gore is getting dangerously close too.

I'm sorry to say it but read it and weep:  It won't be Gore or any other traditional liberal.  It might even be someone we haven't thought of yet.  But one thing is for sure, it'll be someone with REAL experience, so that eliminates Edwards and Obama.

The election-based euphoria and daydreams on here are embarrassing.  Bush REALLY sucks and STILL we could only just BARELY eek out enough wins to take the house and senate.  There has been no major realignment:  America is still a conservative country (notice everyone including Pelosi proclaiming that there will be no "liberal" programs proposed).

And, let's face it, on Iraq we were bamboozled by our own people.  The dems have no solution to Iraq and Bush's "stay the course" is what we will continue to have.

Being a GQ model and charming does not make a good president. He is 1/2 of the reason we have Lieberman with Bill Clinton the other half. Note the common denominator of the Dem elites? This guy is a old line professional pol. An empty (expensive) suit and no substance.

It's just hype.

So is all the cheerleading for Hillary.

The people who are actually qualified for the presidency and would make good ones is very short.

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."

The short list, in my opinion:
Al Gore
George Mitchell
Nancy Pelosi

I picked Nancy because she's probably going to be the next president, and she has a ton of experience in government.