I would buy Obama's deference to leaders in the Democratic party if I felt that were any leaders in the Democratic party (Anyone? Anyone?) but he doesn't seem to want to fill the void and so we end up with a bland parsing pol who spends all of his time trying to not leave anything distinctive on his permanent record...and we already have an Evan Bayh. Personally I'm tired of Democrats who are obsessed with process and talking about how they need to get their message out. There comes a time to decide what you stand for...and then stand for it.
I don't have a horse in the 2008 Presidential election and I'll vote for any Democrat short of the Joe's (Lieberman and Biden), I only have one requirement for my candidate: someone who can win. And for that, and because both parties bases are pretty much set in stone, you need someone who can excite the mushy middle (also known as the "independents") and I don't think that you can get them off the couch them with more mush.
If you want to lead the party, then lead. Otherwise stop wasting my time and sucking the air out of the room...
Word. Obama, contrary to what he seems to think, at this point probably has the least to lose by taking a bold stand on something. Being both near the bottom of the list in the Senate and one of the most popular Democrats out there puts him in a position to take a risk. I understtand wanting to build a record before making waves, but when he Republicans control everything and the casualty rate in Iraq is creeping up to 3,000, there is little time for process and caution. Obama should take a cue from the lukewarm response to Hillary's baby steps onto the campaign floor, another junior senator who could have set the pond and fire and did not.
Okay I'll stop picking on Barack for now. Next up, why hasn't someone punched Ann Coulter in the neck.