I agree, I have been extremely cynical about politics and by extension politicians for a while, one has to admit that Obama is definitely a breath of fresh air in the political landscape. My concern though is that I think he might feel he needs the presidential "bully-pulpit" to make the fundamental changes he wants to make.

I wonder if that is not short-sighted... If Ghandi, MLK and Mandela could generate a movement from their followers, might Obama not be able to do the same without becoming CIC. The amazing thing to me is that even as a candidate he has been able to really mobilize people to get off their butts and participate in this election. No matter what happens this is a very important aspect of what he's been able to do.

For Obama change is an electoral process. As such it will not happen overnight, not even with two consecutive Obama administrations. You have to begin somewhere, and Obama's revolution is to bring young people into the process who are not protest oriented but who want to make their influence felt. If Obama does it right, he may make politics a respectable profession again. That is real change.

Then in about 20 years (or less) the Chinese call in their loans to the US, and accept property/companies/power etc. as payment. The US - a wholly owned subsidiary of the PRC.

Just recently we have seen the beginnings of how he plans to enact the change he proposes. As soon as he was the presumptive nominee, he began to reorganize the DNC and called for an end to donations from registered lobbyists and PACs. This immediately returns power to the people. My dollars mean more, now that they are not competing with institutionalized donation machines.

I question whether the American populous will be willing to donate their hard earned money over the long term, especially in non-presidential election cycles, but this strikes me as a huge step in the right direction and a display of the power his new coalition gives him.

It was also announced today that the Obama campaign promises offices in all 50 states. I personally hail from Texas (a red state through and through with urban pockets of blue). Our last blue executive was Anne Richards (forever and a day ago). However, his campaign offices here have built huge ground teams, and I have personally seen renewed vigor and interest in supporting the Texas Democratic Party. Boyd Ritchie has done an excellent job of capitalizing on youth involvement and the aura of Hope.

By effecting organizational change at the bottom via empowering John Everyman, Obama has increased the potential for new Dem victories in local and state elections. This, while he uses his newfound power to push for change from the top. This political squeeze play will force the status quo in the middle (Congress) to shape up or ship out, and we see the beginnings of this in recent special elections in Red states.

Just my .02

Change will not occur overnight. There are a lot of entrenched interests that will actively work against it, and there's just general inertia.

However, the president sets the tone. The president inspires. The president sets the priorities. When President Obama sets a priority like universal healthcare and then inspires millions upon millions of people to push for it, Congress will have to listen.

Another source of change will be in presidential appointments. Remember, Bush did tremendous damage by appointing people who were actively hostile to government and civil liberties in the Justice Department as well as the EPA, FDA and a whole host of other departments. All those political appointees get swept out with an Obama win. Those positions can be filled by people who have demonstrated a commitment to a functioning government and helping our citizens.

We have huge problems. Not all of them will be solved right away. But an Obama administration will put us on the path to solving them and will foster an atmosphere of openness and citizen participation, and that will make all the difference in the world.

Maybe fifty years ago the social critic Dwight McDonald said people either get what they like or like what they get. Politicians have traditionally given the voters what they like. They take polls to find out what voters like then give them that. The Clintons were masters at this. Please, this is not a put-down, it is politics that works. The Republican slimes do the same thing (which is NOT to say that the Clintons were slimes). If I get it right, Obama proposes to tell the voters the truth, that is, respecting their ability to understand the fix we're in and the necessary sacrifices required to turn the country around, and they'll respond. In short, he is taking the route of "they'll like what they get." This is revolutionary only if you ignore the occasional anomaly, say the numbers of people who liked a imaginative television program like "Northern Exposure."

I see many die-hard Obama supporters posting here, and have to say, I find it pretty alarming. Have supporters really been promoting Obama for the highest office even though he has no reliable plan to bring the change he promises? Is that why it’s called change you can believe in? He can’t really be relying on 60 or 70% of the people to “grassroots” his programs through congress, can he?

In the first place, less than 50% actually bother to vote and he is only hoping to get 50% of that vote. Then, 50% of the 50% majority voting Obama out of the 50% that votes at all were supporting Clinton. While they may vote for him, they are unlikely to march on Capitol Hill and demonstrate in favor of, say, a health care program that provides less coverage than hers did. So, under the most favorable scenario, Obama may have 15- 25% of popular support as committed followers, but they would be the ones expected to bring about change. This is not a master plan it’s a disaster of a plan.