What a great article. I actually remember another time the media romanced a candidate that promised hope, trust and change--Jimmy Carter. Like many, I consider Carter to be one of the worst presidents of the past century. His IQ was also among the highest of any president. Hmmm... why does it always seem that the perceived genius wearing the knight's shining armor actually turns out to be the village idiot?

For me, Hillary Clinton is the real hope. Men might joke that she can iron their shirt, but like many strong women, Clinton won't be afraid, as she says, "to roll up" her shirt sleeves and start mopping up the mess. Obama will be too busy giving his rhetorical speeches--like Jimmy Carter--and those speeches will become very old, very quickly.

This is a rather superficial assessment of Obama's candidacy, capacity, and competency, compared to Patrick's. If you believe that Obama is all hype about hope, you do need to sit down and think about this in a bigger context.

The substance of his candidacy is his judgment and ability to listen, learn and compromise. Obama is a community organizer in his core, and making things happen is what he is all about. He will be a president who will govern with politics as the "art of the possible," i.e., the acheivable. I am not sure that Patrick had these qualities.

Obama is not just about abstract hope. He has specifics. Remember that earlier in the campaign, summer and fall of 2007, everyone was complaining about how wonky and boring his meetings were. That was supposedly the reason why he was underperforming, and not getting any traction versus Clinton. Now, the criticism is that he is not substantive enough, just because he has found a way, through his ability with words, to communicate with large audiences and get his basic message out.

Comparing a potential Obama presidency to a Patrick governorship is fair but myopic.

Don't underestimate Obama. He's been in politics 11 years and he is not an idiot - he topped his class at Harvard Law School. So far, Obama has run by far the most effective campaign since FDR. He will be equally brilliant, articulate, and effective as President. He will not chase Utopia.

While I appreciate Mr. Seigel's point, it is not at all true that the politics of hope "have been a bust since 1980." It was in 1980 when the "realistic" Carter was defeated by the "dreaming, unrealistic optimist" Reagan.

In virtually every presidential election, one candidate (usually the incumbent party's candidate) is more realistic about what the president can achieve, while the other candidate is more hopeful. When the hopeful candidate wins, and succeeds (like Reagan did) he is seen--correctly--as a great statesman. When he wins and fails, as often happens, he is seen as, er, a failure (such as G. W. Bush).

But it isn't as if "hopeful politics" is on its way out--in fact, it's built into the system.

In case you think all black, Harvard-educated, hope-based politicians are the same, Obama is not considered in thrall to the teachers’ unions. Note his July 2007 speech to the National Education Association at the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where he endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers--a most unpopular stance among teachers.

Another person we can compare Obama to is someone Siegel knows well--David Dinkins. As a native New Yorker, I remember when Dinkins ran for mayor and people thought he was a nice man and a "uniter." But we should have known better, since he was friendly with people like Sonny Carson. So, too, with Obama, whose spiritual mentor is an admirer of Louis Farrahkhan. Dinkins turned out to be unwilling to enforce the law and combat crime. I predict Obama, if he becomes president, will be unwilling to enforce the law and combat terrorism and crime. Obama already has a plan to release 19,000 drug dealers early.

I think you have misunderstood Barack Obama's political musings. He is not looking for a Utopian society. He, unlike Hillary Clinton, doesn't believe all Americans should be forced to purchase health care, nor does he advocate the government fixing inner city poverty. He doesn't believe you can pour money into the public schools to make them work. Like many extremely bright people, he favors a merit-based society as the remedy for ills. He is a realist when it comes to gun control, and he has never claimed to believe universal peace was possible. You are oversimplifying his platform, as have so many who have tried to grasp his popularity. He, like Abraham Lincoln, is a great speaker, but also a realist. He also has the gift of charisma coupled with intellect.

It is too soon to judge Deval Patrick's administration, and I also think it is unfair to characterize Obama as being Patrick's twin. I suspect that Obama is a more gifted administrator. Periods of history, replete with scandals, corruption, and the pandering to special interests, are often followed by a desire for "purification" on the part of the electorate. What is so terrible about that?

What Obama brings is a sense of the shared experience of bringing more transparency and justice to the system, and if he accomplishes just a tiny bit of that, we will be better off. We all know that utopia is not possible in this world--the desire for it is a misplaced longing for heaven. But heaven is in the hearts of men; the desire for justice is strong. If men had not dreamed of something better, would America exist at all? Wouldn't the dark night of medieval Europe grind on yet today? The desire to sweep away the pain and evil of a bygone era is strong, and one thing is sure: injustice will yield to peaceful change, or it will ultimately give birth to violent revolution.