Barack Obama: Is that all there is?

Following Pennsylvania the news commentaries have turned pessimistic, (lemming like as usual) not so much about Obamas ultimate likelihood of winning his party's nomination as about a spreading sea change in how the candidate is viewed. David Brooks decries his devolution into a mere politician. Charles Krauthammer perceives a character defect and Peggy Noonan likens his predicament to a fascinating play lacking a second act.

Central to his apparent image change is a growing suspicion that Baracks primary, if not sole mission in the Presidency will be to admit and undo all of the terrible affronts America has visited upon groups (African Americans, Latino's, the poor, and those in the military, etc.) and upon our economy. Then there are the affronts to other nations evident in our ill conceived and incompetently handled foreign policy.

People of good will may agree or disagree that any or all of these perceived problems deserve top priority in any new administration. But there should be widespread agreement that "There's more to the Presidency of the United states than "undoing past errors". Damage control is necessary but not sufficient. 

Is that all there is to Baracks promise of "Transcendent Change". If so, the ordinary people across this broad diversified land of ours, speaking both for themselves and for figures from out of our long and exceptional history as a nation, are letting Barack Obama know, in no uncertain terms  that "it just isn't good enough".  

Borrowing Peggy Noonan's metaphor "You need a second Act comprising all those many aspects of our nation that we are rightly proud of that should be preserved. It has less to do with religion than it does with history.

Withdrawing troops from Iraq is one thing but what do you propose we do about international terrorism and nuclear proliferation?

If we have learned that democratizing the Middle East was a fools errand, what alternatives are you proposing for that region?

Where do you intend to get the money to reduce our nations debt load and establish vast new government programs, if taxes will not be raised? Savings realized from our military extraction from Iraq are not really available. It is borrowed money that has to be paid back. It was borrowed from China and borrowed in the name of our children and grandchildren. Spending the equivalent would be to perpetuate and magnify the problem.

In summary: We know what your against. What are you for?