I have been sitting here for the last hour or so, trying to figure out how to Blog about this article.

It is an very interesting article by Sean Wilentz. It appears in Newsweek, who is basically a partner with MSNBC.

In this rather revealing article, Sean proceeds to lay out the factual history of the Democratic Party and it’s struggle to wrangle the White House out of the control of the Republican Party. Sean also shows how, how Kennedy and other Democratic Presidents was not only well known for their speaking ability, but also known for their substance as well.

Sean writes:

The convergence is revealing. As Republican strategists have begun to notice with delight, Obama’s liberal alternative to the post-Bush GOP to date has much in common with Carter’s post-Watergate liberalism. Rejecting “politics as usual,” attacking “Washington” as the problem, promising to heal the breaches and hurts caused by partisan political polarization, pledging to break the grip that lobbyists and special interests hold over the national government, wearing his Christian faith on his sleeve as a key to his mind, heart and soul—in all of these ways, Obama resembles Jimmy Carter more than he does any other Democratic president in living memory.

In other ways, Obama’s liberal vision appears clouded, uncertain and even contradictory. During his four years in Washington, he has compiled one of the most predictably liberal voting records in the Senate—yet he presents himself as an advocate of bipartisanship and ideological flexibility. He has offered himself as the tribune of sweeping change—yet he also proclaims national unity, as if transformation can come without struggle. He has emerged as the champion of a new, post-racial politics, even though he has only grudgingly separated himself from his pastor of 20 years, who every week preached a gospel of “black liberation theology” that has everything to do with racial politics.

The most obvious change to liberal politics Obama has to offer is the color of his skin. Some of his supporters have, whether wittingly or not, been candid enough to say, as Sen. John Kerry did last March, that Obama’s blackness is the rationale for making him president. But it is difficult to square such claims with Obama’s appeal to a liberalism that transcends race. And when Obama himself subtly and not so subtly draws attention to his color, and charges that the John McCain Republicans will try to scare voters by saying he “doesn’t look like all those presidents on the dollar bills,” he turns voting for him into an intrinsically virtuous act, proof that one has resisted base appeals to racism (which, in fact, the McCain campaign has not made).

Much of Obama’s appeal to the left stems from what might be called the romance of the community organizer. Although his organizing career on Chicago’s South Side was brief and, by his own admission, unremarkable, it distinguishes him as another first of his kind in presidential politics, a candidate who looks at politics from the bottom up. For the left, community organizing trumps party politics and experience in government. Some even imagine that Obama is a secret radical, and they see his emergence as an unparalleled opportunity for advancing their frustrated agendas about issues ranging from the redistribution of wealth to curtailing U.S. power abroad.

Obama still has a long way to go to describe the kind of liberalism he stands for, how it meets the enormous challenges of the present—and how it will meet as-yet-unanticipated challenges after the election. Nowhere is this more crucial than in the harsh and volatile realm of foreign policy. Last winter, when his candidacy gained traction, Obama’s foreign-policy credentials consisted almost entirely of a speech he gave before a left-wing rally in Chicago in 2002, denouncing the impending invasion of Iraq as “a dumb war.” That speech, made by a state senator representing a liberal district that included the University of Chicago, and that went unreported in the Chicago Tribune’s lengthy article on the rally, was enough to convince many of his supporters that he is blessed with superior acumen and good instincts about foreign affairs. Later comments, such as his promise, later softened, to meet directly and “without preconditions” with the leaders of Iran and other supporters of terrorism, pleased left-wing Democrats and young antiwar voters as a sign of boldness—even as they left experienced diplomats in wonder at such half-baked formulations.

I must say that I admire Mr. Wilentz for having the chutzpah to be honest enough to admit that the one, that the media has pushed forward as the Democrat that will change America, might just be lacking in substance.

I mean, I realize that there are Neo-Conservatives that are loudly snickering, because this man is saying this. But I personally admire the man for having the intellectual honesty to say what he is feeling. It is not a popular sermon to preach, so to speak. Especially in the Church of Obama.

I must say, that I totally agree with his assessment of Obama as well. No, not because of his skin color, that is a simple minded and quite foolish assumption. I agree with it, because it is the simple facts. Obama just does not have the Political Experience that the many other great leaders of the historic Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party saw a title wave and decided to capitalize upon it. This is why Hillary lost, not only just because she ran a lousy campaign. It was because America wanted something new and the Democrats decided that a new, fresh face was more important than depth and experience.

Now whether is was because of Identity Politics or just an outright euphorically charged decision will for the history books to decide.

However, what is known is this, Obama really needs to tighten up his Campaign message, he has to prove, not just to his Democratic base, but to the rest of America, that he is a person of sound judgement and will be able to lead the White House in not only times of peace, but also in times of crisis. This is what Hillary’s message was. However, because the Media was so focused on Obama, they totally ignored that message.

Kudo’s to Mr. Wilentz for having the courage to speak, what many in America, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent are thinking in America today and will be up till the election in November.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Conservative, Democrat, Democrats, Election ’08, Election 2008, Liberal, Liberals, Libertarian, Obama, Opinion, Politics, Republican, Republicans, vote, voting