No doubt about it, Sen. Barack Obama seems to offer dramatic change with the rhetorical flair of a politician who comes along, perhaps, one or twice in a lifetime.  However, this article makes it very clear that some of the substantive elements of what Sen. Obama might bring to the table, notably, his desire to "talk" to rogue regimes, may not be as positive as one might imagine.  Caution should be taken that legitimacy is not given to regimes that are looking for recognition that they simply do not deserve.  Another point, negotiation must always come from a position of strength, either overarching, or positional.  To do otherwise is actually a fools errand.  This is not meant to say Sen. Obama is wrong, but it is meant to say that he should think long and hard on each individual case should he become President.  By the way the analysis is from a Brookings Institue scholar (a think tank with a center left alignment).

Also, Charles Krauthammer makes reference to a bit of unease over Obama's "messianic" qualities and postulates that there would be quite the rude awakening after an Obama innauguration day.

Keeping in line with this line of argument, this series of articles is simply amazing.  To read it comprehensively would take a couple of hours, but the series goes over the course of history and looks at the hopes that are inflamed by "false messiahs" in the course of their political rule.  From Nero to Charlemagne to Napoleon and even Hitler, this is a useful historical survey that illustrates the dangers of false hope being manipulated by political leaders.

I am not suggesting Obama is a "false messiah" akin to a Roman Emperor or Napoleon.  Yet there is a distinctive, messianic bent to some of his events.  This has begun to be noted in the media.  His "paper thin" resume as Krauthammer states makes one wonder what he really will do besides being a "hopemonger."  As the first article about negotiation illustrates, Obama has already put himself in a potentially awkward spot of, perhaps, negotiating from less than the needed position of strength with unsavory regimes.  He also doesn't flesh out any proposals for what he will do on any sort of entitlement reform.  He has no foreign policy experience.  He has far less national experience than even the youthful Kennedy in 1960.  In fact, what he offers seems a bit like a religion, an experience where exaltation takes over and rationality exits.  I am concerned that he simply isn't prepared to be a President because beyond being a "hopemonger", a President must understand the hard realities of the world as it is.  I will refer again to the line from Kissinger's "World Restored" (from my previous post) because I think it explains fully the dangers of prophets, "But the claims of the prophet are sometimes as dissolving as those of the conqueror. For the claims of the prophet are a counsel of perfection, and perfection implies uniformity. Utopias are not achieved except by a process of leveling and dislocation which must erode all patterns of obligation. These are the two great symbols of the attacks on the legitimate order: the Conqueror and the Prophet, the quest for universality and for eternity, for the peace of impotence and the peace of bliss."

I doubt Obama would ever intend damage, he is a highly intelligent, articulate, and seemingly decent person.  Yet there are unsettling questions about what an Obama Presidency might mean irrespective of intent.  Change can be a great thing, but undefined "change" can be unintentionally problematic, especially in times of turmoil.  Statesmanship is as much about steadiness, legitimacy, and the containing of revolutionary ideas as it is about ushering in appropriate change.  Incrementalism while not "sexy" is usually safest (ask  a Frenchman who lost his head to Robespierre or a Russian who fell to Napoleon or even a Russian who went astray of Stalin).  Radical breaks with the past rarely go smoothly and typically usher in something darker than ever conceived.  I am not certain this time is ripe for a revolution, again, irrespective of intent. 

A revolution of hope is not preordained to fail, but neither is it preordained to bring salvation.  Sober reflection vs. exaltation could well be what is most needed.