But the real world is chock full of nuance — a lot less black and white and a lot more gray.

Qualities like “specialness” or “greatness” or whatever you want to call it are subjective and intangible — and your declarative, Thus Spake Zarathrustra certitude is a little absurd, and a lot presumptuous, because it’s really up to the collective -and history- to decide.

Okay, so your defense is that Obama is just playing partisan politics as usual? Great!! That’s my whole point. There is nothing “fresh” about Obama, other than his rhetoric (and even that isn’t as fresh as many claim). He says we should “turn the page,” but apparently not until AFTER he gets elected.

You are right, it doesn’t mean that he’s “bad.” But you are wrong about him being special. He’s not.

Whether we skew left, right or center, we tend to be process people. And process people understand why a normally center-right Giuliani suddenly veers right on guns and gays. And we know why maverick McCain suddenly plays footsie with the people who shat upon his head. And we know why Kucinich is now pro-choice. And we know why Obama is engaged in a little party-building.

Doesn’t mean they’re bad. Doesn’t mean they’re not virtuous or good or special. Just means they’re running for president in 2008.

Don’t like “rich?” Stick with Ironic. Or unusual. Or different.

No need to read anything into every comment.

Endorsing Stroger may not have been the brightest move he ever made, he could have sat it out, but as a Party Leader, he was needed to ensure the Cook County Prez seat didn’t flip.

You point out that Obama endorsed Gianoulis, citing that as evidence of being intimately involved in state politics.

…False conclusion.

Recall that the head of the Illinois Democratic Party is one Michael Madigan. Party Chair Madigan had another candidate chosen to run for the Treasurer’s seat.

You may also like to know that while he certainly is more involved than his quote suggests (it’s a good quote for national media, not us Prairie State pragmatists) … he’s not deeply connected. In fact his Hope Fund is a state PAC specifically set up to counter Madigan’s Dem Party funds. Obama made verbal commitments to state-based candidates (local and state lege) but they were in the form of IOUs so that Madigan wouldn’t withdraw funds he had promised when Obama money showed up. The Obama IOUs came after Madigan money went into campaign funds. (The following is pure speculation: this may be part of the reason Madigan wasn’t very involved in running a statewide IL-House binge for Dems like Jones’ campaigns for the IL-Senate.)

I agree that Obama’s comments are a bit off just on the face of things, but some of the conclusions you draw don’t jibe with facts on the ground.

I’m not sure he’s Lincoln and I don’t think its so bad to draw on Lincoln as an example–I’m pretty sure Stevenson did it too.

But what did Lincoln run on in 1860? He wasn’t calling on the nation to eliminate slavery or even prevent secession since it wasn’t clear until after he was elected that secession was likely. He was, like most American Presidents, an incrementalist who compromised a lot. Then after the election things went south and he rose to the occasion.

Does that mean Obama would be that good if such events happened to him? I don’t know. I think so, but I don’t know and I don’t think any of us knows about candidates. I do think he has the judgment and qualities that a leader needs, but we don’t know until they are tested–and no one else in the field can really answer that. Even in McCain’s case where he underwent years of torture, does that translate into good judgment as the leader of the free world? I don’t know. I think he’d do okay.

jerry – “Obama endorsed Stroger because Stroger was the Democrat in the race.” – I don’t recall Obama appearing at the campaign rallies of “the Democrat” in the Governor’s race that appeared on the same ballot.

And Obama endorsed Stroger because Stroger was the Democrat in the race. He was never going to endorse that corrupt Republican-American Peraica.

By the way, Archpundit, The Chicago Reader has made its Obama archives available. The first article is on his 1994 State Senate race.

That’s rich.

“I think Lincoln did what he thought was right, even though it meant losing half the country. I think you don’t do what you think is right if it means losing Michigan’s electoral votes.”

What is Obama willing to do, even if it means losing the election, to turn his idealistic rhetoric into reality? If the answer is nothing, then why is everyone getting so excited about this self-declared second-coming of Lincoln?

It’s baloney. I don’t excuse it necessarily, but I don’t get to uptight about it.

I think he could easily say something to the effect, “there are significant problems and that the prosecutor will determine the facts and proceed–I pledge to maintain tough independent prosecutors like Fitzgerald.

However, as of now the Mayor is not under indictment and as he has said, he needs to more carefully monitor city practices. With that in mind, I believe the Mayor has done a great job with the City of Chicago and look forward with working with him to continue that progress.”

Don’t you find it at all disconcerting that Obama was being – at best – misleading (I personally would go so far as to call it “dishonest”) when he said “I can’t judge where there have been improprieties and where there haven’t been because I haven’t been intimately involved in what’s been happening in state and local politics over the past couple years.”

After all, doesn’t endorsing a candidate for State Treasurer or County Board President count as involvement in state and local politics? He did both wihtin “the past couple of years.”

And why would Obama endorse Daley for re-election if he’s so detatched from local politics that he doesn’t feel comfortable judging whether or not the Mayor (or anyone connected to him) has been involved in any improprieties?