Following the primaries in Ohio and Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has lost some of his sheen. As a supporter, I think this may not be a terrible thing; he will now have to campaign without the glow of a media and fan-following that some had begun to suspect amounted to a personality cult.

I don’t think I’m easily gulled by politicians—for 20 of the 28 years I have been of voting age the presidents have been Bush, Clinton and Bush, so I have earned some cynicism. I am approaching the half century mark, so I no long qualify as “young” and am not a part of the Obama-rama campus movement.

But I decided on Obama early on, voted for him in our primary, and have grown increasingly in favor of him in his now-bitter fight with Sen. Clinton. My strongest belief is that our next president needs to be an ambassador to the world, to repair the damage that has been done to our standing, re-establish the rule of law by ending the torture regime in Guantanamo Bay, and build a new international coalition against Islamic fascism and terrorism. I think Obama understands this and embodies that promise.

Regarding the war in Iraq, it happens that I do not favor an immediate withdrawal; having invaded the place on false pretenses and allowed, through criminal incompetence, the bottom to fall out, we can hardly just up and run. But, in fact, there is no way that will in reality happen. Any withdrawal plan, whenever it begins, is likely to take as much as a year and a half in any case. An advisor of Obama’s got him in some trouble during his recent bad week after the Ohio primary by telling a foreign newspaper that Obama’s actions would be guided by realities on the ground when he becomes President, rather than what he says on the campaign trail.

That was interpreted as hypocritical, but in fact it is only common sense: of course that’s the case, and we should hope that it would be.

What matters, less as a practical matter with regard to the war than as an indication of the kind of person he is, is that Obama spoke against this war at a time when fear was at a fever pitch—9/11 was still fresh and the President, unable to persuade us to any great national purpose, chose instead to frighten us with stories of WMD based on bad intelligence.

What also matters is that while we cannot simply cut and run, we also do not owe it to Iraq or anyone else to spend our treasure and our twenty-year olds indefinitely policing what amounts to a gang fight between Sunnis and Shiites. We need to establish a timetable, some achievable objectives—such as defeating Al Queda in Iraq—secure international assistance in mitigating the worst damage of our departure, and get out. And then reconstitute our forces in Afghanistan, while rebuilding alliances toward the goal of developing a multi-national approach to the Middle East.

Of course, Obama is very eloquent. And, sure, some of what he has said (eloquently) is mush. But there is an apt parallel between the promise of Obama and the presidency of Ronald Reagan, which Obama himself was canny enough to acknowledge as more transformative than Clinton’s (much to the fury of Bill and Hillary). Whatever you think of Reagan, he did inspire many millions of Americans and reversed what had seemed to be a downward trend in this country since the late 1960s. But not even Reagan’s most ardent worshippers would say he was a great public policy genius, spouting elaborate and detailed explanations of how to tackle complex social and economic problems. What Reagan was great at was….being Reagan: genial, at ease with himself, buoyantly optimistic and defiantly patriotic.

The presidency isn’t like being the CEO of a corporation or the executive director of a social service agency (two jobs Hillary would kick butt at); he or she is the embodiment of a vision, at a given moment in time, of what America is about and capable of becoming. He or she articulates that vision and then works with a multitude of factions to work out the details, in a system that is constitutionally designed to allow the maximum amount of voices and is predisposed against sweeping change.

I think the moment in America in 2008 belongs to Barack Obama.

The number of influential politicians or political commentators who have endorsed Barack is remarkable, ranging from the liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy, to a number of Midwestern Democrats from conservative states, to former senator Gary Hart of Colorado and the governors of Wisconsin, Virginia and Arizona. Political writers including Andrew Sullivan and Hendrick Smith (conservative and liberal, respectively) and novelist Michael Chabon have also endorsed him. Other political commentators who are not endorsing Obama, but have written admiringly of the Senator include Joe Klein and conservatives David Brooks and George Will.

“I don’t think you can be around him and not come to the conclusion that this is a person of rare quality,” Sen. Conrad was quoted as saying in a not entirely glowing report on Obama’s first days in the Senate in the New York Times (which has endorsed Sen. Clinton).

In contrast, the Clintons seem to leave a trail of people find them to be secretive, endlessly calculating in their own self interest, and inclined to take no hostages when it comes to getting what they want. Their conduct alone in the campaign, when contrasted with Obama’s demeanor, is enough to recommend him. Take your pick among the many clever tactics the Clintons have resorted to; my favorite is the video clip of her telling voters that she and Sen. McCain have foreign policy experience, but Barack has a speech he made in 2002—thereby providing McCain video footage we’ll all be watching until November should Hillary (gasp!) not get the nomination. So much for party solidarity.

And how perfect is it that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are now supporting Sen. Clinton, albeit with twisted or insincere motives? Reading Coulter is like watching a Michael Vick dog fight; it’s riveting, but ugly, and the spectator is as complicit in the ugliness as the perpetrator. And that’s what she likes—she and Limbaugh need spectators, those who love them and those who loathe them, and so they need people like the Clintons who thrive on the same divisive tendencies as they do. What fun is a food fight with a prude like Barack Obama who seems to think that politics should be, at least sometimes, a dignified affair?

Sometimes Coulter is funny, and sometimes she isn’t, as when she refers constantly to “B. Hussein Obama.” This attempt to impugn the loyalty of a thoroughly Americanized mid-westerner is pathetic, but it works; I have talked to at least one Lakewood citizen who refuses to vote for “a Muslim.”

When did it become respectable to display such fear? Did 9/11 really so un-man us? I think a vote for Obama is a vote against these baser instincts that have been pandered to for the last eight years. For this fear—cowardice really—is the true legacy of George W. and his shadowy, snarling vice president.

And when the subject of experience comes up, remember this from a February 21 column in the Washington Post by George Will:

“The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.”