"To win over voters from the white working class who aren't falling for the inspirational speeches, he needs to add urgency about class inequality to the equation."

- Not going to happen, try talking to some of these people who work in conditions most Slate readers don't understand. The working class is WORKING, not reading blogs and discussing theories on class struggle.

Comparing Obama to RFK takes a real leap of imagination. Edwards is a lot closer to RFK than Obama could hope to be...

The similarity is the passion of the support. Young people across the country are flocking into politics to support something NEW. That is the parallel to RFK, and it is an honest one.

Edwards might have talked a similar talk to RFK, but he is no RFK.

I guess, from an earlier post that you are from Illinois, so maybe you are used to it... but I've attended 2 Obama events, and I thought myself to be too cynical to get swept up in a campaign. At one event he brought me to tears.

When I chose to support Obama over Richardson (best resumé) and Dodd (best policy) - both before seeing him speak live - I did so because I thought he might have the charisma to unite our fractured country... and he alone was running on a message of crossing the isle and working together with republicans. That level of charisma is what unified the country around JFK. That level of charisma unified the country behind Reagan and led us down the dark road of borrow and spend irresponsibility... Obama has that level of charisma...

The ability to lead is not something that can be learned. It can be honed, but the sharpness of a blade is limited by the material it's made from. Without the ability to get people to follow, you CANNOT lead. Clinton, after 16 years in the public light, is hated by more people then she is liked by... she knows all the moves, can cry on demand, can fire off a witty line... but people don't follow her with any passion. Her support are yellow dogs that feel she's "done her time", while Obama has new people flooding the political landscape eager to reshape the country with him... She's as good of a leader as she could ever be, and she doesn't have a mere fraction of his ability.

He is another RFK, he just doesn't have the exact same platform.

Well said.

What good is a message if people don't like the messenger? Obama is a great speaker and can energize a crowd like no other politician in recent memory.

He and Hillary have very similiar platforms but Obama can make things happen while all Hillary can do is energize the right to dig up dirt on her and her husband.

Not from IL - from the Rust Belt. I made $1.00/hr my first job. Old enought to have lived though JFK, MLK and RFK, not just read about them.

I had professors refuse to teach me because I am a woman and didn't belong in a "man's" class. I fought the system for over 30 years to make things better for all the young women - and hopefully young men - who came after me.

Pretty speeches don't make change - it's hard, ugly work and a lot of it is downright disheartening. Obama and the young ones following him have a lot to learn. Not sure they have what it takes.

Edwards is a lot closer to RFK than Obama could hope to be...

HA! Edwards is a obvious phony and an intellectual lightweight. And he's history. Get over it.

That's what they said about JFK, too young and didn't have the guts to follow through. I think history sees that differently.

I voted for JFK and would likely have voted for RFK, too, although his so-called "magic" never touched me. He remained to me a Harvard-educated street fighter. And, maybe in hindsight, that is what the country needed.

You sound like your life has been a struggle and I can appreciate that: I graduated from one of the best universities in the US in1957 (I was there on a scholarship) with$1.75 in my pocket and a newspaper reporter's job waiting for me and paying less than $1.00 an hour. However, because my life was damn tough at one time does not mean I should have no faith in those who have had it easier than I have. All the Kennedy's have or had it easier than either of us but they have served our country pretty well. I think Obama will or may do just fine.

Edwards isn't quite in the race any more, is he?

I thought that people who voted for Reagan put their emotions in front of their brains, and I think the same thing about people who would vote for Obama. Reagan returned this country to a pattern of inflating corporate powers, inflating the real estate speculation market, sending all businesses that sustain capital investment in communities overseas, raiding working people's retirement funds, and making a patriotic religion of war-mongering. While he was making people feel good, we were letting them do lots of things that were against our long term self interests. That's why the moneyed elite and the Republicans prefer all democrats to support Obama. Sure Hilary is slick--so was Reagan the teflon president, and so was Bush. That's what it takes to get elected, to deal with world leaders, and to get things done. Sorry kids, but you can't just sit around and wait for the world to get better and sing feel good songs.

If you want to feel good, go to a bar, take a vacation, or fall in love. If you want to put this country on the right track, stop letting the politicians jerk you around by manipulating your emotions. I don't think discussing whether you or Hillary shed tears is relevant to the analysis of who can lead this country.

"Edwards isn't quite in the race any more, is he? "

No, that's why I voted for HIllary this morning.

And I respect your vote. I voted for Obama. I think it's very telling that the two left standing, at least for today, have largely positive messages, whereas Edwards always talked in negatives and about punishment. I hope you're not one of those angry people. One of those people whose lives are so miserable that they project all their frustrations onto politicians when simple personal changes take place. It's very easy to blame others for waht are essentially personal problems. As someone who feels the need to define themselves on here in terms of her gender and career, I was a little worried at first.

As for the moniker - I'm proud of what I accomplished...and yes, in a way it does define me, at least some of the hard choices I have had to make in my life. As you get older you will find out that you can’t have it all. Something has to fall by the wayside. And before you ask, I would do it all again.

Am I angry? No there is no reason to be angry, but I am tired of people not understanding that we haven’t gotten to where we are by talking about it and having kumbaya moments. Equality (racial, gender, economic) is a struggle. I think that you have to consider who will really fight for change when it comes down to making a difference. That's why I chose Hillary.

esya wrote:

I thought that people who voted for Reagan put their emotions in front of their brains, and I think the same thing about people who would vote for Obama.

My support for Obama is based on a rational appraisal of his willingness to tell inconvenient truths in politically inexpedient circumstances, such as going to the teacher’s union and giving a speech where he supported merit pay or telling the Detroit automakers to raise gas mileage. He also demonstrated the wisdom and courage to oppose the invasion of Iraq at a time when spineless Democrats jumped on W's war wagon.

Sure Hilary is slick--so was Reagan the teflon president, and so was Bush. That's what it takes to get elected

If Hillary is so slick, then why does she have such high negatives, and why does Obama benefit so much from exposer to the voters?

and to get things done.

Obama has a proven record of getting things done in a bipartisan way. As president, his charisma and broad support among independents as well as Democrats would translate to a political mandate for action.

Sorry kids, but you can't just sit around and wait for the world to get better and sing feel good songs.

This Clinton trope that the growing support of Obama is just 'kids' ignores the reality of his growing coalition among not just the young, but also African-Americans, middle-class whites, independents, and progressives. And no, you don't just sit around and wait for the failed foreign policy of Bush to work, you get out there and conduct diplomacy with all the nations that play a role in international politics and American interests- such as Iran. Which is what Obama would do, rather than the continue down the same path that is leading us to ruin.

Tundrayeti wrote:

"Clinton, after 16 years in the public light, is hated by more people then she is liked by..."

Please back up this statement with some hard facts. Saying it doesn't make it true.