Well, I am not too sure what you mean by 'what was the downside' for him, I assume you are questioning his motives or suggesting that this entailed no risk but advantage to him. But I certainly recall the political context in which this speech was made, the patriotic, almost vitriolic, 'call to arms' which was quite powerful at that time and had us willing to grant extraordinary latitude to the executive branch and the military to redress the terrible wrong which had been inflicted on us;  powerful enough to cower the NYT and other mainstream media into suspending judgement on the war and the measures taken to prosecute it. And this at a time when Senator Obama was in the Illinois state Senate; a body which did not have a say in national policy, certainly not regarding defence or national security.  I am not sure he was even contemplating a US Senate candidacy but he said, among other things:

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

And that resonates for me, because I was horrified back than at the apparent lack of dissent regarding this war. I am certainly not suggesting he was alone, but we are talking about him, aren't we, his principles and integrity? Tell me, then, what was the 'upside' for him?  Was he speaking for his constituency, echoing a mood of discontent in his electorate at a time when the country was rallying behind Bush with unprecedented support? I am not a Chicagoan but I don't remember it playing that way anywhere in the US.

And he is more than a mainstream democrat, though some consider him less, or at least the legislation he has sponsored in the Senate has impressed me as being relevant and significant, if in keeping with his freshman status, though he seems to be 'pushing the envelope' there as well. I recently discovered a post which says it much better than I can here but just to give you an example of his work in recent months:

WASHINGTON, 8 Sep 2006 - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. "By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens," Obama said.

WASHINGTON, 29 Sep 2006 - Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law.

WASHINGTON, 17 Nov 2006 - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) this week introduced legislation to protect Americans from tactics that intimidate voters and prevent them from exercising their right to vote on Election Day. The legislation builds on similar legislation he introduced last year by including specific language to address misleading fliers and harassing robocalls that occurred during the 2006 cycle.

WASHINGTON, 6 Dec 2006 - Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill: The House of Representatives today gave final approval to a bill sponsored by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to protect an individual's right to continue reasonable charitable contributions, including religious tithing, during the course of consumer bankruptcy. The measure passed the United States Senate in late September and will now be presented to the President for his signature.

WASHINGTON, 5 Jan 2007 - American Fuels Act of 2007: U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that they have introduced comprehensive legislation to both increase the production of renewable fuels like ethanol, and make that expanded volume of fuel more widely available to motorists nationwide.

WASHINGTON, 11 Jan 2007 - Lugar-Obama Proliferation and Threat Reduction Initiative: President Bush today signed the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative into law. Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

And in the the 110th Congress he serves on four committees: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Not bad for a freshman senator.

But lets get to the other things that 'puzzle' you about Senator Obama's strength of support, and how he manages to excite some people the way Dean did back in 2003/04.  Well, I can't help you here... There is the 2004 DNC Keynote Address, of course.  That's where he first grabbed me... and if you haven't watched it you really should.

There is the speech on faith and politics  which might be helpful, at least serving by example to give you an idea of what I meant by challenging the traditional values of his audience, and I mean progressive Democrats, too, which I excerpt here:

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws; but I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs can bring quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.

I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished. But my bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence all young people for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith - the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps - off rhythm - to the gospel choir.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America's renewal.

You can browse the Chicago Sun-Times and see just what kind of impact he has had as a Illinois State and US Senator; I found that quite useful and impressive. There is the posting from one of our own bloggers, vwcat, which struck me as, though partisan, seeming to represent a succinct view of what influence he has had in his own constituency:

I guess you could say, to find out how Obama plays in the long haul and what his staying power is, talk to people from Illinois. We got the bug early and by the time of Ryan's campaign imploding in the early summer, Obama fever was already solid here. It took a month to find someone who would run against him as he was blowing the GOP away.

He ran at a 60% or more all summer and into the fall. Now, in 07, we are still in thrawl with Obama. He has done his job well. He's done alot for the state and has done alot of legislation. He still draws sell out crowds here and people still crowd and swoon.  

In Southern Illinois it's the Deep South. Like Alabama. He has a big fan base with those white good ol' boys there. Solid Republican districts still love Obama. He attracts the evangelicals, the good ol' boys, the business upper class, working class, dem, repub, and indies.  

He has staying power here and star power as well. The fun thing is seeing all the people who think he's some lightweight flash in the pan. Some guy who peddles just hope and nothing solid. Just wait. It will be fun to see how the country acts when they find out about the real Obama.

And as for the books, well, read 'em.  You won't regret it and it will certainly get an insight into what is under the man's skin and what he is thinking about, and feeling.

But the thing that matters most for me is that what you said is true, you are dead right, I just plain like Barack Obama.  I watch him and listen to him and read his words and it touches me, somehow.  He is asking for something more than my vote and I want to give it to him. And for all the slicing and dicing of polls and triangulation on issues that I read on these postings, and enjoy reading, I might add, I believe that most voters, like me, will vote for a presidential candidate whom they trust, respect and find inspiring.  And if it is all a bunch of cat-shit they will make the most of it and vote with their heart anyway, but I don't think it is. And that is how I felt about RFK, too.

Yeah... The Dean campaign was a great lift.  It was a bit like firing a torpedo... sometimes they run shallow, sometimes deep, hard to aim or track but there is always the chance they will hit something big with a massive detonation; hopefully not one of ours.

Money well spent; instead of a president we got a process.

I am with you on Senator Obama, hopefully he is playing a careful and considered game for the whole stake.  And as for confronting the GOP, didn't HRC tack for the 'beating the Republicans' breeze. Well, who could blame her or anyone else who wants it bare-knuckles... It has been a long wait in the cold.

Maybe.  But most of the objections to Obama that I have seen here aren't because Obama isn't confrontational enough; it's because he isn't substantive enough.

Nobody is going to flip the GOP into supporting a liberal, progressive agenda. But, what will flip the GOP is another election cycle like the last. Only the in the next cycle the DEMS end up increasing their majority in the House and achieving a veto proof Senate. This will have the Republicans not only flipped but on their knees.

So the question is from which candidate can we expect the best leadership and direction. For me the answer is easy: John Edwards.