took about 2 minutes on Google and YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAxrEDhamDs

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&;entry_id=23492

If you think the smears haven't been widespread, you don't read very widely. And, do you really expect an amen chorus to your criticism of Obama here? Really, do I or anyone else have to say at the beginning and end of every statement we make -- "Obama is a human being"? Kind of boring isn't it? Have you seen any denials anywhere of that obvious fact?

To suggest that there's a "unifier Obama" and a "liberal Obama" is to create a caricature for each and a false conflict between the two. Obama has never said he'll pull together every last American. What he's said it that he'll create a critical mass of Americans -- not just a bare majority -- to work for change. So his goal is to unify far more Americans than Clinton or Bush behind his agenda. And because there are lots of independents and moderates who want voice and vision, he sees them as the source of his unifying strategy. That's exactly what the most successful presidents have done. To accomplish this, of course, he'll need to be a "political Obama," a trait he's shown quite well in this campaign.

To suggest that his supporters are a bunch of Jim Jones followers is to diminish their appreciation for these dynamics. Sure, some may be disappointed, just as some liberals were disappointed by JFK and FDR, which is natural in politics, but others may find their faith in him confirmed and pull more independents or young people or others along. That's how big re-election victories are won. You may think that Americans have little understanding of politics, though the interest in this election suggests that they have more than the pundits are willing to acknowledge. But even granting this point, Americans do have an understanding of social and organizational dynamics because they work in environments that require these skills. They then apply that to politics and end up with a more sophisticated appreciation of how things get done.

Lenny Steinhorn
Professor of Communication
Affiliate Professor of History
American University

I agree with everything you say.

My hopes are raised by Obama too. And if he wins in November, I'd be thrilled. But so many of his supporters seem blind to his limits that I fear they are in for deep disappointment.

There is a contradiction in Obama's appeal that will come back to haunt him. He is at his best in appealing to people's good intentions. This is Unifier Obama. But he's also encouraging liberals to believe they have finally got one of their own on the path to the White House--a true blue believer (as opposed to the Clintons, who are regarded as compromisers). This is Liberal Obama.

Now can one man be both Unifier Obama and Liberal Obama?

I don't think it's possible.

That's why I worry his supporters are in for a fall.

That makes sense. I certainly do not object to your pointing out his connection with Jones. I do not even mind your trying to deflate some of his supporters exaggerated expectations. It's good to keep people anchored.

But a lot of people support him with eyes open, often seeing him as the best candidate available who can defeat McCain (which may be right or wrong but is certainly a rational concern).

Others are genuinely impressed with his ability to raise people's hopes. I know I have heard on the street conversations about Obama that I have not heard about any other candidate in a very, very long time.

We need skills; we need wiliness; we need experience. I would love it if Obama had more of those things. But we really do need, as a culture, to think about politics a bit differently. That difference is not an abandonment of deal-making but a greater focus on the higher goals of deal making.

Can Obama pull that off if elected? I don't know; hence my own ambivalence toward him. But a lot of people would like to see someone try, and Obama clearly appeals to many of them.