all the pundits fit to post

A sampling of the best and the brightest of the NY Times Op-Ed page reveals that conservative David Brooks is optimistic about Obamamania, while it is left to Gail Collins to introduce notes of caution and realism.

"This is a huge moment. It's one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too."

"If Clinton wants to be Franklin (and Eleanor) Roosevelt in this campaign, and John Edwards is channeling Williams Jennings Bryan, Obama is, for all his early opposition to Iraq, the most conservative visionary in the group. Big change is hardly ever accomplished without political warfare. When the red and blue states join together and all Americans of good will march hand-in-hand to a mutually agreed upon destiny, the place they're going to end up would probably look pretty much like now with more health insurance."

*

The truth lies somewhere in-between. Obama has shown some ability to "change the topic" of discussion on the Democratic side. His vision is inspirational. On the other hand, his policy positions are not very different from those of his competitors. And the question remains of how he would pursue the trench warfare that would be needed to move a Senate that is still dominated -- through arcane rules -- by Republicans. Does he have the desire and instincts to succeed in this endeavor? ( for example, would he use Executive Orders to bypass legislative stalemates?). Or, does Obama expect Republican Senators to be swept up in his lofty rhetoric, or compelled by their constituents to follow his siren song?

These questions remain unanswered.