politician since JFK and it would be a huge mistake not to nominate him. In my humble opinion.

He is a game-changer and a map-changer. As I put in my own diary Obama is a transformational candidate because he has the personality and background to 1. solidify a long lasting Democratic majority, 2. bring the political center towards progressive values, 3. stop the boomer strangle hold on politics and 4. radically improve our relations with the rest of the world.

this confirms that Obama has broad appeal, not because of his policies (which are to the left of most Democratic candidates in modern times) but because of his personality and framing/message. Unfortunately what works in a general election is not always rewarded in primaries.

Watching the George Will comments on the show yesterday reminded of statements made by the conservatives involved in Obama's Harvard Review election years ago.  There is something about Obama which makes people comfortable with him even though philosophically and politically they may be diametrically opposed.  

And Cokie brought up a point which I think is very true but not often mentioned.  A lot of the country are tired of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton exchange of power.  

A short essay over at Huffington Post dovetails perfectly with this diary. Here's an excerpt:

For those of us who feel passionately about one principle over the other, [Barack Obama's leadership style] can
be maddening. We want someone to say that we're right and they're wrong. This may be soothing for the ego.
But is this good for progress?

Sen. Obama's way is how conflict gets diffused and consensus gets built. Sen. Obama was clear to say this
morning on This Week that he is not naïve to think that he's going to get the whole country to hold hands and
sing Kumbaya. Instead, these are the skills he needs if and when he brings warring DC parties to the table -- a
table that, as things stand now, is practically burnt to the ground.

I would argue that Sen. Obama's desire to damp-down difference is part of the peacemaker's way. The leader
who brings adversaries to the negotiation table is smart to validate points of each argument, to give confidence
that she or he knows opposing concerns are legitimate and worthy of discussion. The leader instills confidence
that everyone will get a fair hearing. We've had six years of my-way-or-the-highway. A strong peacemaker
stands the best chance of creating progress at home and salvaging what's left of our good name abroad.

Yet, we demand a president to be someone who will say "I am this, and I am not that." We demand the
candidate to differentiate himself or herself deeply, to cut connections from others so there is little ambiguity,
so that the candidate goes from being a complex individual to an icon we can hang on the wall.

This need to sell a candidate in shorthand is not going away anytime soon. However, I ask that the thoughtful
among us take the time to consider that Obama's way is the way to peace, the way to growth on every level.

. . . . . . . . . .

While Sen. Obama must continue to show us the details of what an Obama presidency can look like, let's hope
we have the wisdom to know the difference between shape-shifting, and what is simply a peacemakers's desire
to damp-down difference. Your average peacemaker doesn't spend much time beating his chest and harping on
differences that can't be overcome.

The whole piece is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-park er-aab/obamas-way_b_48373.html

I think that a lot of conservatives like George Will can plainly see that the GOP is going down to defeat big time in '08 because of Bush and Iraq.

This might explain the strange Obama boomlet among folks like Carlson, Brooks, and now Will.  They must figure, "if we are going to get beat than better it be to Barack Obama who will have the good sense and decency not to rub it in."

to Obama's appeal. He talks, he makes people feel good. When I talk to Obama supporters, few of them say they are for him because of this or that policy he is endorsing. I hear things like, "I like the way he talks" or (I swear a friend of mine said this) "When I listen to him, I feel proud to be an American."

Obama is not like Reagan--Reagan was an insincere fraud who understood little about policy. Obama is a smart guy who believes in things and understands policy.

However, I would say that the candidates have a lot in common in the feelings they evoke from supporters.

I support Edwards, but to my mind, Obama's greatest strength is this knack for making people feel good when he talks.

I think Hillary will fade all by herself, with no need for Obama to go after her. Edwards is his real competition.

fair enough, rssrai. I might argue that "level headed" or "cool demeanor" does not equate with "soft", but I certainly see your point.

Check out some of these strong statements from Obama's Kansas City appearance (my emphasis)...

Truman's stomping ground, "give `em hell" country, and that's exactly what Barack Obama did Saturday afternoon: He rousingly gave `em hell.

He played off the enthusiasms of a fervent crowd of 2,000 in a downtown hotel ballroom to lambaste President Bush's policy in Iraq, noting the Democratic effort to use legislation to bring troops home in a phased withdrawal is meeting an impenetrable stone wall: the president's veto.

"I don't think we are going to change George Bush's mind," Obama said. "He doesn't seem to be someone who examines the facts."

Obama has been arguing all along that the solution to the war in Iraq is a political one and the lengthy presence of American troops will do nothing to solve the impasse among the various Iraqi ethnic groups. He asserts the solution is political, not military.

...

Obama reiterated his own theme that Americans need to find a unity of mind amongst themselves and also to reach out to the rest of the world to resolve issues such as global warming, the debacle in Darfur and nuclear proliferation. We need to mend our relationships abroad, he explained.

"The day this president steps down, the rest of the world will breathe a sigh of relief," Obama said.

He also called for the closing of Guantanamo -- the American military base in Cuba where putative al-Qaida terrorists are imprisoned: "Why don't we say we don't do torture, we don't do rendition, that's not who we are as a people."

He concluded with another theme he regularly invokes: that America needs to be transformed into a country that expresses humanity and "core decency" so it can remain a "beacon of hope" to the rest of the world.

Reagan's 11th Commandment was to not attack any other Republican.  Therefor if Obama is the new Reagan he can't attack Hillary, it is against the 11th Commandment

Interesting.  George Will makes a good point.  

My feeling on the issue is, Obama needs to get youth to the polls or caucus.  Part of why I'm guessing he's lower than he really is in polls is because he has the 'youth' factor.  If he can make youth vote more than they usually do, the polls aren't measuring the youth vote correctly, and the outcome is different than the polling.  

is being like reagan a good thing?

Obama can make his point about his appeal as opposed to Hillary subtly. In his tv ads he can talk about how he wants to cpmpete for every state and every siwng voter comparing hiself with Hillary's image without mentioning her name.

Not sure he's Reagan yet, but he has the potential to be.

I think the Democrats make a mistake in underestimating the candidate who speaks in broad, general terms but is able to inspire.

I hear it now: "Obama doesn't have a plan for this or that." But, at this point, he doesn't have to have a plan for everything. Just a general direction.

We have to stop nominating wonks. They rarely win.

You guys are a real trip.  

I'm supporting Hillary.

If Obama wins the nomination, I think it'll be a landslide victory.  He could conceivably carry every state out of the South.  He'd also have a mandate for change, and hobbled Republican Party.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I think she'll eek out a general election victory.  However, the campaign will be brutal, full of personal insults that will make Bush-Kerry look tame.  In the end, it'll be another %51-%49 election because Hillary's negatives are so high.  She'll win, which would be better than any of the R's, but the country will be as polarized as ever.  She'll motivate the R's just enough to guarantee a close finish.

basically that Reagan would drive some conservatives (and liberals, to be sure)crazy

What utter bullshit.

Reagan was one of the most rapidly partisan Republicans of his era, and there was nothing about him that drove conservatives crazy.