I see where you’re coming from, but I remain skeptical. We’ll see. That is all I have to say about that. But see here and here and here.

I would disagree about the practial differences between an Obama and a Clinton Presidency (past and proposed). Recall that the first Clinton came into office with Dems controlling both houses of congress. Within two years, by sheer ineptitude, inability to lead the Dems, and Hillary’s health care debacle, this was gone for good, rendering him incapable of actually doing much of anything except within the executive branch over the rest of his term. Hence, no game changer. I am betting that Hillary would end up similarly squandering the Dems gains in favor of her own political advantage by continuing her triangulation game. It’s all she knows how to do.

Obama, on the other hand, is a far more skillful politician who – in part because he’s leading the ticket – come into office with lots of momentum, including big gains in congress. As President I think he knows how to work with his own party – which Hillary does not – in a cooperative way to both consolidate and grow the gains the Dems have made. I also think he will institute policies and propose legislation in a manner that attracts sponsorship and is able to grow coalitions around it, rather than alienate through top-down autocratic leadership such as HIllary displayed on health care. In short, the difference between Obama and Hillary is not so much ideological as practical. Despite her claims, he’s the guy who I think can get stuff done in the political and legislative process. He’s also the guy who has already shown that he knows how to change the way the game is playing, by organizing a huge base of participating grass roots organizers. This is a new wave coming to our political process which most people are hardly grasping as yet. And yes, it’s a potential game-changer. I don’t know if it will translate into giant electoral vote victories, but that isn’t the point. As you say, Reagan got those, and it didn’t actually change the game all that much. What Obama is doing is trying to actually change the way politics is played in an age of internet technology and a vastly horizontal playing field, rather than the vertical one in place during Reagan’s time. Old paleocons seem to be missing this, they think it’s some nebuous “change” mantra because it’s not based on a new ideology. It’s not changing the color of the uniforms , it’s changing the rules of the game itself to conform to a changing society. A whole lot of people out there are way ahead on this, and some are way behind.

What I mean by a “game-changer” isn’t limited to the election itself, but is meant to indicate that an Obama Presidency has the chance to change the game quite dramatically, at least as dramatically as Reagan in 1980, and perhaps with a more lasting legacy. A Hillary Presidency means more of the same. It’s precisely because the Dems have an inherent advantage this year that I’d like to see someone like Obama, who has more potential than Hillary, use the situation not just to put the Presidency in Dem hands, but in the hands of a Dem who can do much more to change the party and the country.

But this is what I just don’t see. Policy-wise, Obama isn’t all that different from the traditional Democratic establishment as it took shape under Clinton the First. (Or have I missed something?) As a politician, he appeals in incredible ways to pretty much the same portions of the electorate that went for Gore and Kerry anyway, while alienating – or at least leaving cold – startling numbers of others. Reagan won 44 states with a 10-percent lead in the nationwide popular vote in 1980, and 49 states with an 18-percent margin in 1984; even with Bush’s staggering unpopularity, the tanking economy, the quagmire in the Middle East, and so on, Obama isn’t going to come anywhere close to those numbers. Meanwhile, any longer-term realignment toward the Democrats, which is of course inevitable given what has happened to the Republican brand, will be promptly squandered within a couple of decades’ worth of political mismanagement, just as the Republicans ran their coalition into the ground after 1993. I’d be happy to put a couple of tacos on that.

massively popular in france and throughout the continent now

What I mean by a “game-changer” isn’t limited to the election itself, but is meant to indicate that an Obama Presidency has the chance to change the game quite dramatically, at least as dramatically as Reagan in 1980, and perhaps with a more lasting legacy. A Hillary Presidency means more of the same. It’s precisely because the Dems have an inherent advantage this year that I’d like to see someone like Obama, who has more potential than Hillary, use the situation not just to put the Presidency in Dem hands, but in the hands of a Dem who can do much more to change the party and the country.

Also, I second everything James said.

But I don’t think it’s a case of one or the other. Yes, Obama is a remarkably good candidate (as he is demonstrating this weekend in his drubbing of McCain over the Iranian issue). And yes, he has put together a remarkably good organization. And those two facts are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary…