The question of why people don't just admit that Hillary wins the debates, and that they like Obama more because they just like him, assumes that the only valid measurement of a candidate's worthiness to be president is their ability to articulate policy positions. One might argue that it is not, in fact necessary for the candidate to have all the answers off the top of their head (since at the end of the day both Clinton and Obama are going to be drawing from the same brain trust in the Democratic party) but that the person in charge be an effective communicator and face for implementing the policies they believe in. By that yardstick Obama wins these debates hands down by not getting ruffled and sounding (whether he is or not) more reasonable than Clinton. The Hillary argument, that she has her stuff together over Obama, would perhaps carry more weight if Obama was less intelligent (or more like Bush), but I don't think anyone seriously believes that there is any policy position that is beyond Obama's ability to comprehend. That he has chosen not to emphasize that ability on his campaign may account for why he's winning.

I generally agree with your post but what you are really saying is that Obama will NOT be much different than ANY DEM as President since they use the same insiders (same 'brain trust in the Democratic party').

Thus Obama's message of 'change' is mostly BS. I voted for Obama because I believe he is more intelligent than the rest and has potential to make SOME changes in how Washington does things. BUT these changes will NOT match what the majority of his supporters are expecting.

Unless Obama is more of an asshole than GWB (with regards to abuse of Pres power) Obama will NOT be able to push a lot of his agenda due to the Washington power structure.

Obama isn't going to "push" anything through. That's Hillary's (failed) approach.

...unless, of course, he lives up to what he has been saying all along his candidacy is about and continues to inspire the American public to become active participants, not only in getting him elected, but also in governing. For example, how difficult to get a clear, simple hard-to-loophole anti-lobbying bill passed when politicians are 'in the pockets of lobbyists' and the electorate are mostly disheartened and consequently apathetic. Add hundreds of thousands of direct communications by an energized electorate to those same politicians by email, phone, letter and even text, and the whole game changes in ways we haven't yet imagined, because we have never had a populist movement tied to today's democratising technology.

Of course, we don't know yet if this is what he will do when faced with the usual temptations and frameworks, but if he becomes President Obama, he and his campaign and the voters will have forged the possibility together of doing what we have all thought couldn't be done--restoring a significant role in the political process to the people.

Can wait to see what happens...

How will Obama be able to make the changes he wants, like health care, if he doesn't 'push' the GOP and moderates to change?????

Anyone that expect charm will get the GOP to change their policies and NOT stonewall doesn't understand Washington.

Lets just use ONE issue as an example; Illegal immigration.

Obama's view do NOT match those of the American people with regards to illegal immigration. So if 'the people' have a significant role in the political process, then Obama should change his view of illegal immigration and let the people govern.

The myth that you believe in is that there is a 'will of the people' in this nation. On many key issues this 'will of the people' is very divided. Thus even if one was to restore a role in the political process to the people, 'the people' would still have to have common ground on where they wish to go.

Sorry, but there is little common ground in my view. PS: I voted for Obama but he isn't going to change the hearts and minds of neo-cons and others in the center and the right. To believe so is just immature.

jazzguitarman:

Obama's view do NOT match those of the American people with regards to illegal immigration. So if 'the people' have a significant role in the political process, then Obama should change his view of illegal immigration and let the people govern.

The myth that you believe in is that there is a 'will of the people' in this nation. On many key issues this 'will of the people' is very divided.

...Sorry, but there is little common ground in my view. PS: I voted for Obama but he isn't going to change the hearts and minds of neo-cons and others in the center and the right. To believe so is just immature.

Everything you have said is true. I, however, am reserving judgment on Obama until he offers something more substantial and practical (though perhaps less sexy) than Hope, Change, and other capital-letter concepts.

Too long has the average citizen felt hopelessley shut out of politics. Obama's movement is about changing that dynamic. He will invite the GOP to go along with his plans, and the electorate will do any pushing required. That is the only way representative democracy can work. Lobbyists aren't going to run the agenda any more. The rules of Washington are about to change.

jazzguitarman:

The myth that you believe in is that there is a 'will of the people' in this nation. On many key issues this 'will of the people' is very divided. Thus even if one was to restore a role in the political process to the people, 'the people' would still have to have common ground on where they wish to go.

The politics of cynicism are a failure. The people are divided, but they can be united under common cause and principles. What the people want is to break out of the morass of endless bickering and division, and all they need is someone to show them the way, and believe that they can make a difference.

:)