Barack Obama is a Liberal Ronald Reagan

I read the Wall Street Journal fairly regularly. I used to read it for business news and crazy conservative opinions. Now it's just for the crazy conservative opinions, which have gotten downright nuts since Peter Khan left the building over there.

The craziest conservative opinion I read was a few weeks ago. In the op-ed section, a story ran giving some analysis of what happened to Hilary Clinton's campaign, and warning conservatives about the overall power of Barack Obama's campaign.

The bottom line? Obama represents hope in a time when people in America at least feel they desperately need some.

The last President that resonated in this way with Americans, at least in the opinion of the WSJ, was Ronald Reagan. Just like Reagan, Obama's opponent's dismiss his charisma and vision as lightweight. Carter, a sitting President, found out just how powerful those two elements can be when he was swept from power by a candidate that opposition forces sorely underestimated. Now, by this point, the only people who are underestimating Barack Obama and his opinion to the American people are largely mainstream Republicans. McCain is already preparing to debate Obama, to the point of largely ignoring Clinton's talking points (read: Healthcare).

The Clinton campaign has not learned this yet, since experience is still and again the main talking point. Granted, this charge didn't really apply to Reagan, the former governor of California, in the 80s. But the dismissal has a resounding ring of the 80s and Jimmy Carter to it.

The point? Reagan represented hope. A lot of his legacy was to gut the Federal treasury, add billions to the federal deficit in order to outspend militarily a Soviet Union that was in hindsight already crumbling. People may have felt better, but ask millions of Americans if they were truly better off. We hoped things would be better, but this may not have translated into action.

For me at least, the specter of Reagan shadows Obama and makes me less than hopeful that such a transformation would happen were he elected. Instead, it could be Jimmy Carter all over again. His motto in 1976? A Leader, For a Change.

And the one thing I'm surprised that the Clinton campaign hasn't pointed out that in 2004, another Presidential hopeful tried to rally America with hope for change. And we all know how well George W. Bush's promise of "Yes, America Can!" has turned out. Both of them had great mottos, if less than stellar track records while sitting in the Oval Office.

Obama could represent a Liberal version of the above scenario. Instead of outspending militarily, perhaps we outspend on Healthcare or other hotbutton issue during a time when we need to correct the budget excesses of the Bush and Reagan years. It's a question of details and the staff that come along when a President comes to power. If the President is a person of details, then the staff generally will be since the person to which they report will be interested in such things. Think about George W. Bush. He resonated with Republicans in 2000 and 2004 because of his Reagan-esque qualities.

So, the question is, "who is running the Obama campaign?" If there is a sharp technocrat behind the scenes, a 'left-wing Karl Rove' and all that represents, then Obama represents something dangerous in the White House for Liberals. And if you think a 'left-wing Karl Rove' is just what the Democratic Party needs right now, I pray you weren't one of the nuts who thought that 'electability' was a real issue in 2004.

If Obama is the one managing the details, then that represents someone who could truly bring hope to the White House. And the Democrats would have a narrow opportunity to really transform Washington D.C..