"Nor does she suffer by comparison on issues of substance; if anything, she's ahead."

I don't agree. He is far ahead in substance and grasp of issues, it just doesn't get as much attention among low info less educated less politically active people, because of what you call "charisma" of his campaign or the Clinton brand name advantage.

This article is short sighted. Its not the "charisma" of Obama that's getting people involved, bu the charisma of his "message". He is not saying "I will magically change how politics is run in this country." He is saying "if you get involved we will together change the system and the world." No one since JFK has inspired millions of people to become politically conscious in days to come.

As per substance, leadership qualities and organizational skills, he is way far ahead. Unlike Hillary's "I will get things done", "I will do this, I will do that" by magic formulas behind the curtains, he is saying that together WE can change things. Real change is not easy. It requires a fundamental change in attitudes and midsets and the involvement of an entire generation.

Awhile back I said I would love to see all our bombs shot into space for 4th of july celebration. Demilitarize completely. Now that would take courage.
The leader who is willing to do that would motivate me to vote.
A leader that is willing to change the way health care works. Doctors on yachts, their patients scrapping together change to buy their prescriptions. Yo North.

I've seen people go for a charming personality right after a bad relationship. Only to realize they are back in the same kind of relationship.

When a leader is willing to say demilitarize, they will catch my ear. I have a feeling that if one major country would have the courage to take that step it would spread like wild fire. Until then I will hope that we start expecting our leaders to stop playing politics and start real change.

The constant spin and over analysis of these candidates is making me ill. When a leader stands up and says, "No more of this over campaigning", they will catch my ear. When a leader can say "No, I will not spend millions and millions on TV ads", they will catch my ear.
When a leader stands and says "No, I will not participate in the dysfunctional government systems that have caused so many problems", they will catch my ear.
Until then I will hope that we will start expecting more from our leaders as they have expected so much more from us.

derek

Dear Deepak,

Your question really is one of those if.... then - questions.

If you have a very well thought out and written strategy, the one you can read at www.obama.com,

If you are willing to step into the unknown :)
and trust yourself completely

If you are willing to be prepared for anything
(like his wife Michele told in her interview with Larry King)

If you have the charisma and can convince your supporters to act in the same way as you are willing to (needs the whole democratic party and a majority in the senate)

Then, YES Charisma CAN

Mieke

If you haven't contributed to the Obama campaign, now is the time to do it. He is approaching ONE MILLION donors. Be part of a million! who own the campaign. Most of them are small donors donating less than $200. These numbers are unheard of in a Presidential race. This is a testimony to the change that can happen with the active involvement of ordinary people seeking change.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main

barackobama.com

If you have contributed (like Deepak Chopra) to the Clinton Campaign before, you can still donate to Obama and add a quantum shift to the political consciousness.

Thank you!

There goes Dr. Chopra using that dirty hope word. Tsk, tsk.

It has been said that hope without the possibility of happening is delusion, and the most delusional people of all are the ones that hope that individual people, and the world entire, could change for the better without faith in [a] god(s) of an immaterial nature.

Ahh, but faith has no place in the minds of those who have had divine revelation of “the truth”. So like hope faith too is a dirty word. We have now rid ourselves of two dirty words, hope and faith, because the religiously pragmatic deem these terms too idealistic, leaving only a third theological virtue to be eradicated: love.

But who needs love when on their quarter dollar it says “in God we trust”. I guess I could call somebody who cares . . .

but the telephone company now charges fifty cents . . .

pax vobiscum

Yes Hillary Clinton has "charisma" ...that she has been fighting all her life against the Republicans(the only time she fought was for the health care reform of the 90's which she lost) ...that she is 'battle tested'...that she did great things in her 35 years of "experience"...etc, in other words her "substance" is a huge myth.

Aloha Deepak

I love how in your Peace book you spotlighted that it isn't the rotten apple in the barrel that needs to be replaced but the barrel itself. We need to create a new container where each citizen sees themselves as the many faces of the insanity of government. And know a greater power than a human power can restore themselves to sanity. Democracy has to practiced at the deepest level. We have to learn we are powerless over government. Forgiveness is the greatest weapon there is and it is an inside job. It is to elect nobody for president. love patty

Is one considering charisma under the guise of kharisma meaning divine favor? Maybe this would explain his popularity as we have been informed that Jesus was indeed a black man. In further digression, it is thought that we have all evolved from African origins, therefore black must surely describe the Totality of all humanity.

Of course a charismatic individual can bring significant change, so we need look no further than Hitler for our negative example and Ghandi for our positive example. But these men were merely catalysis who directed change within a prior existing realm. These two men illustrate beautifully the influence that human has on human. Yet it further illustrates that a perceived negative may provoke a positive change and
conversely, a perceived positive may provoke a negative change. After WWII, the state of Israel and the United Nations were realized, after Ghandi, although India was free of Britain, India was disaccord with Pakistan. Any change within a contrived societal realm is merely change within the existing boundaries and further revolt within this realm is simply organizing furniture inside a prison.

I find it extremely evident in reading your political posts that transcendence is a relative field, at most, as it relates to the True consciousness of man within his Universe. Even Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, with his Yogic Flying(?), seems ludicrous within the realm of "white men", organized into CIA's with access to smart bombs and spy satellites. Personally, as I truly value my freedom to reasonably do and think as I please, I am utterly concerned with my relation to people who are obliviously stupid in drug induced stupor. Whether the drug be tangible or it be abstract is not the point, the point is that these people expect one savior to lead them out of the forest when in reality, we ought to be burning the forest down. Not so we can form new classes or create new dogma, but so contrarily we may fully integrate a society of 'self aware' individuals into a collective under which the foundation of love and cooperation exist.

This foundation is certainly not under the present pseudodemocracy within the capitalistic realm. This is where the true war begins; everyone wants to be like you Mr. Chopra, they want to be 'known', they want to be heard, and they want your money and everything that goes with it. But this can not happen and will not happen because everyone can not be Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates and Donald Trump- it seems it is a zero-sum game after all-so we will have a Revolution and the tyrants blood will flow with that of the innocent. Let us just all hope that Love, Peace and Brotherhood will prevail in the end.

Aside from charisma, Obama's wonderful face and name will send a message out to the world about America, if we actually do elect him. For myself, I believe that we really have the opportunity now to heal our damaged image and rejoin the world community in a serious effort to renew our planet!

Dear Deepak,

I agree with all the points you listed to restore America. And especially the one to end nuclear arsenals and dismantle the weapons industry.

I have just started to read Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" and find it very insightful, honest and enlightening. I have learned a lot more about politics, the Constitution, US history and the subtleties of life. I admire his integrity and values on empathy, tolerance, and his desire to bring all diverse points of view into a cohesive whole.

I do hope he will be the next President of the United States of America and bring about those changes to restore America to its pristine glory.

On the TV playing in the background a commercial catches my eye for another video game, straight from the Army to the video game manufacturers of course, that is called "Frontlines: fuel of war" and the voice is saying "in the near future there will be wars for resources, resources needed for our very survival, which side will you be on"!!!

Man, we don't have a chance.

They have our children, they have them, and they will most assuredly use them.

There is a good article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. over at LewRockwell dot com: http://[DELINKER]www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-triumph.html

(Don't forget to take the [DELINKER] out :)

I guess there really isn't any hope.

I spent 35 years drunk and not caring, spent the next 4 semi-drunk trying to care; thank God I quit grad school I might have actually stayed sober and cared way too much . . .

Sheesh, I may have even actually repaired relations with what family I had left: o well.

2 years later earnestly striving not to give a shit again over here boss (but for some reason I don’t think this is the nonattachment I was looking for . . .).

(Yo AmbaSteve brother man it would be an honor to have dinner with you and the family without talking about religion or politics, iffin I make it to Summer I may have to walk on down to Cali and see what is up!!!!!!!)

God bless all

Deepak, This is a noble hope for Obama's presidency, but if your standard is to judge him on whether he gets rid of nukes and ends our obsession with the military and military spending, surely you will be disappointed. This is America, and Democrats are nearly as addicted to the military as Republicans. I'll judge Obama a success if he makes real strides toward universal health care, progressive taxation, poverty alleviation, support for public schools and a sensible immigration policy--one with a tall fence, but a big gate. If you can start to even reduce military spending, so much the better. Thanks again for your incredible world leadership.

Deepak,

The "personal magnetism" of charisma may be more than Obama. It may be a groundswell of charismatic response from the masses. A meeting of the minds through above-ground consciousness and under-ground subconsciousness. If this is the case the tidal wave we are witnessing is not going to go away. As awakened bodies of consciousness let's add our voices and help define this wave as you have exemplified in this post.

I'd like to add overpopulation to your Restoration of America list. I know it's not a popular topic as people have emotional attachments...I guess physical/biological as well. Overpopulation, however, is choking our quality of life in cities and suburbs and is putting tremendous stress on earth's resources. This subject must be a talking point in climate change conversations.

Deepak, thanks for being a voice for us folks on the ground. Thanks for being a focal point. May our voices give you lift so that you can do this vocal work. As one body of intention we can ride this wave adding our own personal and collective magnetism. The force is with us!

Trish~~

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak, I love the way you simply ignore the mania aspect to the Barak Obama popularity and call it enthusiasim, really, I am sure there is genuine enthusiasim among supporters but the "mania" that has fed and given wings to that genuine enthusiasim is still quite potent and I imagine will continute right through until the actual presidential election and then some. I think it will be quite some time before the folks get tired of holding up the magic carpet for Barak Obama and affording him his untouchable wall.

you write,"Enthusiasm isn't waning as the first glow of infatuation fades. This is testimony to Obama's integrity, a much used word in politics that rarely matches reality"

I suspect what you call enthusiasim I would call mania(Saturday Night Live captured this mania, perfectly, on their Saturday nite show) is not so much a tribute to Barak Obama's integrity as the mania for Hillary Hating is a tribute to her lack of integrity but more correctly, imo, for the simple pleasure the mania affords when one is engaging in it. After a certain point both disappear and just the mania itself is alive and well and on the move.

Anyway, it looks like the mania has done it job, Barak Obama is closer to his golden egg with each passing day and once he grasps it the mania will move on to someone and something else and Barak Obama will have to perform his magic all on his own. My only hope, right now, is that he is, in fact, up to the job the mania afforded him.

My take on the matter is not as sugar-coated as your's, but then again I'm a Hillary supporter and I guess we are a bit bitc-y by nature...or gender...I not sure which.:)

have a wonderful day,,ruth

The challenges are huge, and Obama is actually more of a centrists than a leftist. The team he puts together will have to be exceptionally skilled negotiators, and themselves free of partisan or special interests. A bunch of unfocused idealists turned loose will result in catastrophic failures for him.

It will take a sustained effort over several Presidential terms. No one person is going to save America from itself.

Without a majority of the population digging in and doing things like giving up addictions to a wasteful lifestyle as well as addictions to shrunk-down, fear-based thinking, the transformations we need won't happen.

If your job rewards you for denying care to ill people, but that is what feeds your family, you have a tough decision to make. If your job contributes to the manufacturing of weapons that end up in the hands of child-soldiers in Yemen, but that's what feeds your family, you have a tough decision to make. If your wealth depends on Americans wasting lots of petroluem and not containing the pollution it causes, you have a tough decision to make.

There's a lot of resistance and stuckness in the ways we have evolved to live. One man cannot change it. At best he can help people focus some of their desire for change.

The campaign is the easy part. Everyone is excited about future prospects. Slogans roll off the tongue.

The real work is going to be accomplished in lots of meetings and political maneuvering. The devil is going to be in the details, as legislation is introduced and the various special interests comb it for exploitable loopholes, lobby to have chunks of new legislation removed and watered-down, and fight against any wording that gives their industry any accountability.

Politicians are masters at dressing up the pig and doing a promo campaign to convince everyone that the pig is a purebred racehorse.

Obama can only do so much. You and I have to take it upon ourselves to dig deeper, actually READ the proposals and EDUCATE ourselves about what is being debated , RESEARCH and find out who is paying off whom to get what earmarks and changes made in new legislation - find out what the loopholes are and which industries benefit from them, find out which politicians are thwarting positive change and why they are doing it.

In other words, going to rallies and shouting slogans is the easy part.

Democracy is a participatory process that demands that everyday, un-famous, nobody-knows-who-you-are regular citizens become educated, informed, and take part in the public debates and make their views known to their elected and appointed public officials, and be willing to vote out, prosecute, or shame politicians who serve selfish interests.

Unless citizen by citizen, you and I and our neighbors and countrymen are willing to do this, change is not going to happen.

Obama is not going to save us from ourselves. He can't.

I think the right way to get his message is to use it as a prompt to start making changes ourselves. If we are willing to that, change will happen.

Otherwise, it's empty rhetoric, and he might as well be making all those great speeches to his own bathroom mirror.

In other words, it isn't all about Obama; it's all about us.

"Obama is actually more of a centrists than a leftist." --Yogi-one

Dude you are so wrong. Contrary to the popular perception, he is the most liberal you can get, more than Hillary Clinton who is more of centrist on many issues.

Liberal icons Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold and now Chris Dodd did not just endorse him just for the heck of it.

The highly politically active Progressive group MoveOn too endorsed Obama ...based on his polices and record after Edwards dropped out.

A Spry Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praises
Copywrite 2008-
Associated Press

In his first public address since a cancer crises, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a saviour to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can life America from her fall."

Farrakhan's keynote address at McCormick Place, the city's convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.

Ralph Nader positions can be called the most Liberal...his job in the past was to pull the candidates towards the left, but that role was already played to a good effect by John Edwards this time around...

More Farrakhan stupidity from TheShadow...Obama can't control what Farrakhan says or doesn't say. His backing was never sought.

(No) thanks for your support…

"OHIO - Not all endorsements are welcome on the presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama sought to distance himself on Monday from praise showered on him by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

“Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Obama was more explicit, telling WOAI radio in San Antonio: “I have been very clear in denouncing Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic messages. But I can’t prevent people from saying nice things about me. Some of them I welcome, some I don’t, but it’s a free country.” msn.com

Ref. 15 by Yogi-one

It amazes me to see ignorance from a person who appeals for RESEARCH, EDUCATE and be INFORMED ...

Yogi-one wrote:
"The challenges are huge, and Obama is actually more of a centrists than a leftist. The team he puts together will have to be exceptionally skilled negotiators, and themselves free of partisan or special interests. A bunch of unfocused idealists turned loose will result in catastrophic failures for him."

Maybe he should first inform himself and follow his own suggestions, then he can be in a better position to make assertions about Obama's political philosophy:

A New Generation of Obama Democrats
by Dylan Loewe

Posted February 26, 2008

Bill Clinton's ascension to the presidency was, at its time, the triumph of a new kind of politics. After a dismal Carter presidency, a crushing loss for Mondale, and a wayward Dukakis campaign, Bill Clinton offered a different style - more than just a solution for Democratic issues, he represented a solution for consecutive Democratic losses.

As the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization whose aim was to recalibrate the party's message, Clinton personified their notion of a New Democrat. Rather than fight Republicans on a spectrum of left and right, Clinton aimed for a "third-way," a kind of politics that meant co-opting Republican policies and remaking them with a Democratic sheen.

Clinton was, no doubt, a master of New Democratic politics. Much of the vitriol with which Republicans berated him grew out of frustration, watching their own pet policies, from free trade to welfare reform, being advocated by a Democratic president.

With success came those who wanted to duplicate his political model. In time, so-called New Democrats held governorships and leadership positions in Congress. They pressed for a centrist agenda, avoiding, at all cost, being described as liberals. The precepts of DLC-centrism invaded the core of the party, pushing progressives to the margins. But it ultimately ended in failure. Bill Clinton had fathered a kind of politics that could be mimicked, but not replicated, the kind that requires the perfect touch and tempo and tone.

For most who tried, third-way politics meant the dumping of bread-and-butter Democratic policies, opting instead for a small profile of issues, directly in the center. Democrats began to define themselves as Republicans, but competent and with pro-choice credentials. As contrasts became muddled, a common complaint was a lack of clear differences between parties.

The exodus to the political center meant a wholesale abandonment of message, leading to crushing victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004. But for a series of blunders, an explosive corruption scandal, and a horribly unpopular war, the New Democrats might have continued their losing trend into 2006. In the aftermath of that victory, however, there are, at least, the signs of change.

In 2007, none of the Democratic presidential candidates spoke at the DLC Convention, an unheard of notion only a few years before. And with Barack Obama inching ever closer to the White House, it may be that a new revolution is afoot.

Obama has built his candidacy on reaching voters in the center without moving his policy positions there. In general election match-ups, Obama consistently beats John McCain among Independents, a group long considered to be the fuel driving McCain's success. Instead, Obama has produced a political formula that advocates a strong progressive agenda, while laying the groundwork necessary to ensure its passage. The new majority Obama speaks of is not an empty platitude; it is the most compelling reason to vote for him. The product of Obama's innovative campaign and transcendent message will be a powerful governing coalition, come January. Obama will consolidate and increase the size of the Democratic base while attracting droves of Independents, providing him with larger margins in Congress and a mandate, part hope and part juggernaut. With substantial political capital, Obama will help further the core of the progressive agenda, allowing it to make strides forward that have seemed all but impossible for more than 25 years. Without a doubt, his model will be copied.

Perhaps, much like the New Democrats, the Obama Democratic philosophy will require a master politician as its shepherd, its mimicry falling short of replication. But for a new generation of politicians, even those who fall short of the lofty peaks of Obama's speeches, a new kind of politics may still be a guiding philosophy: the kind of politics that embraces a progressive agenda, honestly and persuasively; the kind that respects the ideologies it rejects; and the kind that stands with pride, knowing that the language of politics still carries the power to spark movements.

The Democratic Party was left worse off when those who attempted New Democratic politics failed. Obama Democrats may too fail at meeting his standard, but having embraced the core ideas of Democratic thought, they will leave the party stronger for having tried.

http://tinyurl.com/29qp9w

I strongly recommend to check out this excellent article:

Arianna Huffington: Clinton, Obama And The Belief In The Magic Power Of Words

..."Along with her "ready to lead on Day One" mantra, Hillary Clinton's favored line of attack against Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Mondale's 1984 "Where's the beef?" attack on Gary Hart. In Clinton's version, Obama is little more than a shallow speechifier -- he believes that words are all you need to lead."

..."I agree with Clinton that it's important to look at how each of the Democratic candidates uses words and how rhetoric fits into how they've run their respective campaigns. And if you do, you'll see that one candidate does believe that words are like a magic wand: you utter them and reality changes. But it's not Barack Obama -- it's Hillary Clinton."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/clinton-obama-and-the-be_b_88349.html
Click *Chris*

Odd.. how we can forgive almost anything on this planet; except poverty? Poverty, we blame the person; whereas poverty is a social disability; and a moral obligation; but..a politician only sees.. financial liability.

Now, if the government decided to end poverty..it would happen; it is so easy really.

But, when men get behind the wheel of a fast car; they become "addicted" not unlike any other type of substance abuse? And politics is a very fast car..and somewhere along the road to change; they get stuck behind the wheel.. and go to war instead; and build space stations, instead of feeding their people.

That is what politicians do.

Poverty, is a casualty of poor governments.

A person is not born poor.. nor does anyone aspire to be poor...they are made poor.

I agree with Dr. Chopra about those three main issues. It's ashame how an entire political party has a stranglehold on Christianity. On nuclear weapons, however, I am a bit hesitant. Such destructive force should never have been created, but I am apprehensive about getting rid of them because that may raise the risk the potential of an attack. But I would never want anyone to use such a destructive force, this country or any other. It's like the late Will Eisner once said, "We have this history for impossible solutions for insoluble problems." This situation should not exist to begin with.

I hope those having false perceptions like Yogi-one read this:

Obama, Pragmatism, and Liberal Principles

I’ve looked at Obama’s advisers in the past, such as in quoting Daniel Koffler’s post at The Guardian where he describes Obama as a left-libertarian. I’ve felt that it is an exaggeration to actually consider Obama to be a left-libertarian, but that he definitely leans in that direction while Clinton and Edwards have views in the other direction. Obama is more libertarian on civil liberties and social issues, while more pragmatic on economic issues. I find this to be a big plus compared to most politicians on the scene.

The problem with politicians and economics is that most take an ideological or partisan view and try twist economic reality to fit their ideology. We see many on the right who argue that any government program is bad, and always manage to fudge the data to show this. I don’t recall ever seeing an article in 'Reason'[magazine] concede that, even if they might be ideologically opposed, there are situations where government actions are beneficial. On the other hand, many on the left are too quick to accept a big-government solution to problems and ignore the many situations where the free market does work better. Many on the right will twist economics to satisfy their personal goals, such as rationalizing lower taxes and eliminating government regulation. Many on the left do not understand that where ever possible it is preferable to tax people as little as possible and allow them to make their own business decisions with as little regulation as possible.

Moving into the political realm, another problem is that both Democrats and Republicans have their special interests. Democratic politicians will taper their economic views and policies to favor the goals of unions and the poor (or at least the middle class) while Republicans taper their economic views and policies to favor big business and the wealthy. Both sides use economic arguments to support their policies while having little concern for objectivity.

The New Republic has a must-read article on Obama’s economic advisers which does stress their pragmatism over ideology:

http://tinyurl.com/3cn6xr

"Despite Obama’s reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts aren’t radicals–far from it. They’re pragmatists–people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale. As Thaler puts it, “Physics with friction is not as beautiful. But you need it to get rockets off the ground.” It might as well be the motto for Obama’s entire policy shop."

There are also comparisons to the Clinton years, showing a difference in approach. The point is that the pragmatism doesn’t mean they do not hold liberal principles, but does suggest that the Obama people have a better chance at reaching workable solutions to problems:

"Bill Clinton favored what you might call a “deductive” approach–an all- encompassing, almost revolutionary idea, out of which fell lots of smaller proposals. In a series of speeches in 1991, he unveiled the product of all his late-night bull-sessions with people like Reich and Galston, which he called “The New Covenant.” The old model held that government had certain unconditional obligations to its citizens. Under Clinton’s reimagining, many of these obligations would disappear. The government would help only those who fulfilled their responsibilities as parents, workers, and taxpayers. For instance, the government would no longer provide unlimited welfare benefits. It would instead require recipients to work after two years of assistance.

For their part, the Obama wonks tend to be inductive–working piecemeal from a series of real-world observations. One typical Goolsbee brainchild is something called an automatic tax return. The idea is that, if you had no tax deductions or freelance income the previous year, the IRS would send you a tax return that was already filled out. As long as you accepted the government’s accounting, you could just sign it and mail it back. Goolsbee estimates this small innovation could save hundreds of millions of man-hours spent filling out tax forms, and billions of dollars in tax-preparation fees.

Think of the contrast here as the difference between science-fiction writers and engineers. Reich and Galston are the kinds of people who’d sketch out the idea for time travel in a moment of inspiration. Goolsbee et al. could rig up the DeLorean that would actually get you back to 1955.

Like their intellectual godfather Thaler, the Obama wonks aren’t particularly interested in tearing down existing paradigms, just adjusting and extending them when they become outdated…

The Clintonites were moderates, but they were also ideological. They explicitly rejected the liberalism of the 1970s and ’80s. The Obamanauts are decidedly non-ideological. They occasionally reach out to progressive think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute, but they also come from a world– academic economics–whose inhabitants generally lean right…

And yet, just because the Obamanauts are intellectually modest and relatively free of ideology, that doesn’t mean their policy goals lack ambition. In many cases, the opposite is true. Obama’s plan to reduce global warming involves an ambitious cap-and-trade arrangement that would lower carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But cap-and-trade–in which the government limits the overall level of emissions and allows companies to buy and sell pollution permits–is itself a market-oriented approach. The companies most efficient at cutting emissions will sell permits to less efficient companies, achieving the desired reductions with minimal drag on the economy."

In transcending ideology, and understanding the concerns of conservatives as well as liberals, Obama has managed to find ways to promote progressive goals while avoiding the problems which have made proposals like HillaryCare unable to pass in Congress. Obama’s advisers similarly have a pragmatic streak on foreign policy:

"The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton’s, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be “more invested in justifying or glorifying” the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don’t have the same “permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government.”

The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, “Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak.” Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus–not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action."

Some Clinton supporters are twisting this article to support their meme that Obama is too conservative as he is not an ideological leftist. This line of attack has not really worked considering that Obama has received the support of MoveOn and liberals such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and most recently Chris Dodd. This also ignores the liberal goals which Obama is pursuing. Just as Obama is pursuing liberal economic goals, even if considering pragmatic economic principles, Obama also differs from Clinton on issues such as going to war in Iraq and over banning cluster bombs.

The net result of these pragmatic streaks isn’t pure left-libertarianism, but does lead to less reliance on big government and the nanny state than is seen with Clinton. When combined with Obama’s more libertarian views on civil liberties, social issues, drug laws, and government transparency there is a clear difference between the candidates. There is also far more substance behind Obama’s views than the Clinton supporters would claim.

Written by Ron Chusid

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2966

Here's a nice analysis of why the message and political branding matters:

The Psychology of Hope: Why Obama's Words Are More Effective Than Hillary's

http://tinyurl.com/37buum

Time: Experience is overrated

The cover of the TIME magazine on stands tomorrow, and on the Internets today, is "How Much Does Experience Matter?" with a beautiful silhouetted picture of Senator OBAMA from the back. The magazine's conversation-driving answer: Character matters more.

DAVID VonDREHLE concludes that some of the most experienced candidates turned out to be lousy presidents, while some of the least experienced — Lincoln comes to mind — turn out to be among the greatest: "An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé."

Managing Editor Richard Stengel, a civil voice among all the political shouting, writes: "We've heard so much about the importance of experience in this campaign, and the idea was to really analyze and investigate what we mean by experience both in politics and in life in general. This has been a bit of an obsession of mine. Ever since I was [at Princeton] and heard Marshall McLuhan say, 'Sometimes experience is a barrier to new discovery,' I've thought that experience is always a mixed bag. When we talk about experience, we tend to automatically treat it as a positive. We don't question it. Experience = good; lack of experience = bad. But what does experience really mean? What does it consist of? Is it always a benefit? Or does a great deal of experience sometimes prevent us from looking at things in a new way?"

On "The Science of Experience," TIME's John Cloud discovers: "[T]hree decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself—the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing—can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. … [H]ighly experienced people tend to execute routine tasks almost unconsciously. … Experience can also lead to overconfidence."

(via Politico)

Excellent article, check it out:

Microtrends vs Macrotrends: Why Obama is Winning
Arianna Huffington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/microtrends-vs-macrotrend_b_88962.html

....The microtrend vs macrotrend dynamic reminds me of Isaiah Berlin's division of mankind into hedgehogs and foxes. He took his imagery from a line in an ancient Greek poem by Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

According to Berlin, the fox will "pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way." This stands in sharp contrast to the hedgehog's "all embracing...unitary inner vision."

Based on the way the '08 campaign has played out, Democratic voters are showing signs of deep fox fatigue -- sick and tired of foxy triangulating, foxy slicing-and-dicing of the message, and foxy shifts in presentation. Voters want real change -- not daily changes in approach and messaging.

Gotham Chopra's dream political candidate, I guess, would be Barack Obama. For one, he is a true Libertarian(unlike Ron Paul) for another he uses Gotham font :)

Great NEWSWEEK article about why you are totally hypnotized by the Obama brand:

Expertinent: Why the Obama "Brand" Is Working
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/27/how-obama-s-branding-is-working-on-you.aspx

This applies to people like Yogi-One:

"..Some people incorrectly compare Obama’s bipartisanship to Clinton’s triangulation but there are major differences. Obama continues to support liberal principles while achieving bipartisan support for his positions while Clinton is to ignore principle based upon political expediency...."

Excellent Article A must Read:

Obama’s Record and Bipartisanship and Defending Liberal Principles

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2986