Jeff:

I am sure that all of the good ideas that you and others are giving Senator Obama are solid. Moving to the center and reassuring folks not prone to vote for him is good stuff.

But the key event in this campaign is going to happen at an undisclosed time this summer. Obama's numbers will skyrocket and the election will be all but over.

I think I and many others know what is going to happen, perhaps sooner than the pundits this year, because we saw what was happening during the primaries first. We understood in advance that Obama had built in advantages:

1. Near unanimous African-American support;
2. Unparallelled youth enthusuasm and involvement;
3. Uncanny management;
4. Message and unprecedented inspiration.

When I was in Iowa working on the campaign it was clear that if Obama was not going to win, he was going to give the Clinton's a massive heart attack trying.

Now, in the general election, the rules are different, of course. He is:

1. mending fences and expanding his base by moving to the center;
2. redeploying his money and resources to key states and undermining McCain's inept organization;
3. Making as few mistakes as possible.

All of this is fine, but it ingores the emotional event, much like Iowa was, that will change the game this summer.

Obama is going abroad.

Of course it is mandatory that he consult with the Generals, the soldiers, and the Iraqi and Afghan leaders. Hopefully he makes the trip worth it by bring back some new a useful insights about our precarious position.

But the real enchilada is right in front of you folks. Obama is also going to Europe to visit about four major allies. What many of us have known all along about Obama is the electric, unforgettable effect he will have on these allies. I cannot imagine that his campaign is not setting the stage for spontaneous crowds such as have never been seen in Europe for an American politician. He is more than the "rock star" he is often described as. He is literally the most curious, dynamic, inspirational, and popular figure in the world, according to polling done by Pew.

The enormity of this ability to unite allies and to even inspire adversaries will be triumphantly on display during this brilliantly conceived trip. His greatest quality, to unite the world around common ground solutions and make American the accepted leader of mankind again, will be driven home by the widespread coverage it will receive.

The kind of coverage McCain never achieve for himself and never recover from by November. He will criticize it and look smaller and smaller and smaller.

Massive adoring crowds abroad. Checkmate Obama.

European support however does NOT garentee a political victory at home. otherwise Bush woulda lost the 2004 election. The American people have their own adgenda and "the french like him" is not seen as a ringing endorsement

There is a big difference between the Kerry campaign and Obama. Kerry made so many serious mistakes along the way that any one, if handled properly, could have made the difference.

Bush's popularity in the US was above 50% in 2004. It is about 28% now.

The two situations are so dissimilar that the comparison is incorrect.

I am glad that he is going to Iraq, if he wants to be taken sierously on that issue he needs to go and see for himself. Thats been one of my biggest bones with him the last couple of months.

I don't think however European love means game over, I think when you look at the Mid-west and Southwest the last thing people care about is what Europe thinks.

Those questions have no clear answers.

We don't know what he wants done NOW to curb oil-price speculation, besides "closing the Enron loophole."

We don't know what he would do to escape Iraq. All I heard is "wind down to 30,000 non-combat troops." Is it 16 months? 9 months? 6 months? 3 months? I've heard all those numbers.

Yes the man is super-popular. Kennedy was too. JFK bungled on foreign policy and couldn't get anything through Congress.

And so far, the ONLY thing BO has done is to appoint Jason Furman as economic chief. Furman is a fanatical Globalist, denies the existence of the Social Security Trust Fund, doesn't know the size of the National Debt, and was Kerry's economic chief too.

A lot of people have already cast doubt on the idea that european feeling will impact the election, and I have to agree, it's not checkmate. On the other hand, I think people underestimate how popular Obama is in Europe, and that Kerry was preferred in Europe, not popular. Obama is more comparable to Kennedy than Kerry.

However, I'll do you one better: there's an early hint that Obama will win in November that the pundits haven't spotted, mark my words:

Remember how in 2004 the Kerry campaign was supported by the Anybody But Bush movement? How Kerry didn't really have a natural base of his own? People voted for him because he was the Democratic Nominee, not because he was John Kerry. Conversely, people voted FOR GW Bush: evangelicals, war-lovers, nationalist zombies, etc. Bush was the focus of the election, the election could be reduced to "Bush or Other" - which means Kerry had no political gravity of his own. In retrospect, Kerry is lucky he did not get handed a Mondale-like thrashing. Only Bush's clear idiocy and Cheney's transparent malevolence prevented that from happening.

Fast forward to 2008. What do you notice about the general election so far, in terms of basic trends?

Check this out:

The right wing movement is not a pro-McCain movement. Its an anti-Obama movement. As in 2004, Obama is already the axis around which the election revolves.

Bush-fatigue, war-fatigue, Katrina, gas prices, all these things are killing conservative enthusiasm and increasing the favorability of a Democratic president. All these things helped put Obama in the center of the election. All the negative crap the conservatives are forced to throw at Obama only sends McCain and the Republicans further and further into the background, just as Bush in 04, being president and at the center of controversy got him all that free advertising day in and day out in the media.

But what will put Obama over the top is that there exists a huge, genuine PRO-Obama movement - hence the high level of anti-Obama rhetoric. And there is no pro-McCain movement to challenge him, in fact, influential conservatives have been turning away from him at a surprising rate. This in itself is poetic justice, since it was McCain's decision to refuse Kerry's VP offer that probably sealed Kerry's fate and put us all through an additional four years of Bush crimes.

Sickofleft, et al;

Concentration on issue positions and interest groups is vastly overrated in a campaign that has such a clear distinction on direction. Obama is not going to win or lose the election because he has lost or never gained the support of particular groups, or has failed to articulate a particular policy. This is inside politics. Voters, even the most independents, know exactly where they stand on the war and the economy. Turnout and enthusiasm is the key.

The reason the European trip is more important than anything else he does, is that it demonstrates "without argument" that he will fulfill his main message: I can unite. Unity is not merely a bargain with Hillary Clinton or with the gun groups or with Latino voters or with anyone else. Unity, in every speech he makes, is the regaining of America's stature and ability influence world events by bringing together allies who have come to see America in a negative light.

His message will be utterly apolitical as it should be abroad. But the arguable supposition that he is this generation's Kennedy will no longer be arguable after this trip.

This feels to me like a year ago when analysts looked at Obama as merely an orator and a black candidate. They didn't get it then and they don't get it now. He is, right or wrong, merely the vessel for Americans' desire to end 45 years of empty politics.

john adkisson:

Sickofleft, et al;

Concentration on issue positions and interest groups is vastly overrated in a campaign that has such a clear distinction on direction. Obama is not going to win or lose the election because he has lost or never gained the support of particular groups, or has failed to articulate a particular policy. This is inside politics. Voters, even the most independents, know exactly where they stand on the war and the economy. Turnout and enthusiasm is the key.

The reason the European trip is more important than anything else he does, is that it demonstrates "without argument" that he will fulfill his main message: I can unite. Unity is not merely a bargain with Hillary Clinton or with the gun groups or with Latino voters or with anyone else. Unity, in every speech he makes, is the regaining of America's stature and ability influence world events by bringing together allies who have come to see America in a negative light.

His message will be utterly apolitical as it should be abroad. But the arguable supposition that he is this generation's Kennedy will no longer be arguable after this trip.

This feels to me like a year ago when analysts looked at Obama as merely an orator and a black candidate. They didn't get it then and they don't get it now. He is, right or wrong, merely the vessel for Americans' desire to end 45 years of empty politics.

Yea,,,not really. Unless he is running for President of Germany or the European Union. (oh by the way once you cross the line into Eastern Europe Bush is actually liked have you factored that into your fantasy at all?...yea I did not think so)

It simply does not matter. People are worried about jobs, not if the Spanish, French and Germans think he is swell.

Sorry but once you get away from the coast this does not factor into our election at all.

I also find your Kennedy comparison interesting, his death was certaintly tragic however his time in office was a time when virtually nothing was done.

"nothing was done"?

Nasa, the Peace Corps, Civil Rights (Think James Meredith or Wallace and the University of Alabama).....The Alliance for Progress, the 1963 test ban treaty, the confrontation with the USSR over Berlin and Cuba.

There was an alliance between republicans and dixiecrats that kept a lot of legislation from getting through, but I would disagree that nothing happened.

What does McCain want to do NOW? None of what he has had to say would impact the price of oil in the next 10 years....and it is doubtful that it would change things even then....

I think today in NYT, Krugman agreed with my point.

One cannot but laud BO for getting himself nominated, but the specifics are again fogging up. Some are beginning to sound even questionable or "plain wrong."

Watch the "Enron Loophole" issue. I fear that the GOP will use it mortally.

BO runs a big risk of becoming seen as a fizzling gasbag.

You're right that McCain also is not specific, but he has "The Lexington Project" and a few decent advisors -- but then he took in Phil Gramm, which could wound McCain mortally too.

Neither candidate seems capable.

middleview:

"nothing was done"?

Nasa, the Peace Corps, Civil Rights (Think James Meredith or Wallace and the University of Alabama).....The Alliance for Progress, the 1963 test ban treaty, the confrontation with the USSR over Berlin and Cuba.

There was an alliance between republicans and dixiecrats that kept a lot of legislation from getting through, but I would disagree that nothing happened.

I think its historically accepted that most of the civil rights accomplishments came after his death under LBJ? Confronting Wallace was important, Peace Corp of course was also important etc as Berlin and of course the Cuban Missle crisis (which of course would probably had never happened if he had not been bitch slapped by Kruschev in a summit but I digress). All of that is true which is why I used the word "virtually", I think most historians would agree that the his legislative accomplishements were pretty thin.

With that in mind I think its interesting that people use that comparison.

I think you're right in that you probably decried and worked against most of the civil rights accomplishments after LBJ. But let me refresh your recollection your racist inbred git. It was voting rights I think your tiny mind is groping for. Civil rights came before that.

Clearvoice:

I think you're right in that you probably decried and worked against most of the civil rights accomplishments after LBJ. But let me refresh your recollection your racist inbred git. It was voting rights I think your tiny mind is groping for. Civil rights came before that.

ohhhhhhh the anger,,,,,I am so frightened,,,,,,,,,,,

Look rage boy see a doctor its not my fault you can't ummmm "perform".......

It's nice that your "life" is so simple.