Two years and four months ago, I made a list of 28 potential Democratic candidates for the ’08 race. The list included all the eventual candidates, except one: Mike Gravel. I think I can be forgiven for overlooking him.

The purpose for making the list was to guess not only who would run, but who you would choose from that list as the best candidate for president. My choice at the time was Hillary Clinton, and I guessed as a dream-team VP candidate, Barack Obama. At the time I was being analytical, trying to figure whose chances were best. I liked Obama, but Hillary seemed much more likely to go the distance.

That opinion changed over time. As I noted in this post, I gradually became disenchanted with Hillary for two core reasons. First, I don’t believe that she’ll do the right thing. She seems to work by triangulation, not by principle. She runs to the center far too often. She may be the skilled political operative, but that doesn’t mean that she’ll do the right thing. I simply don’t like her record, nor what she says and does today.

Then there is the issue of how she would fare in the general election. Despite assurances about how she has survived and has demonstrated that she can fight back, she could far too easily be made into a figure of dislike amongst Americans in general. She seems to me to be the Kerry of 2008–the one who seems to have “winnability” only because she’s the “power” candidate. If you recall, Kerry also was the “winner” choice, and we all believed that he had the best ability to fight back against the Republican slime barrage. We were wrong. I believe that impression is similarly mistaken about Hillary. There’s just too much dirt, too much negativity and polarization to exploit.

Slowly, as I saw more of the candidates, I liked Hillary far less, and Obama far more. As I noted in 2005 when I saw Obama as a potential running mate, I noted this:

This guy can give a speech. This guy has the potential to rally support, and more than coming from a state or balancing a ticket, he could actually motivate people and get them to come to vote. He is inclusive, he is positive, and he is young and energetic. He’s also one of the most popular senators around. …Obama’s positive enthusiasm and inclusiveness will win the day.

In a February, 2006 comment to my candadite-list post, I noted:

Actually, I’m beginning to lose my interest in Clinton, and with Feinstein, for the same reasons–they are too compromising, too clinging to the middle of the road. I’m beginning to think that we need someone who is more willing to stand by their convictions. Feinstein lost my vote of confidence when she shut down the Alito filibuster before it could get started. Don’t get me wrong, [e]ither of them would be a hundred times better than Bush and many times better than any Republican candidate I have seen.

A year ago, I had pretty much swung fully into the Obama camp, noting this:

Barack Obama scares the living crap out of [far-right-wingers]. The reasons are simple: he has no sordid, scandalous past. He has no long track record they can hang him with. But most importantly, he is a liberal who does not come across as a liberal. He comes across as centrist, reasonable, and personable as hell. His books are well-written, intelligent, and thoughtful, but can’t be pigeonholed as liberal-elite. Even more, he can see both sides of an issue; where Bush claimed to be a uniter-not-a-divider but in action was anything but, Obama does not ostentatiously claim this, but he does display it. He does not give the easy answers to people, he doesn’t tell them exactly what they want him to say–but they leave feeling that they’ve been dealt with straight. And as far as straight-talking is concerned, he makes Bush look plastic and cheap by comparison.

In short, Obama is about as liberal as you can get while having the charisma that could appeal across centrists and even fairly deep into conservative territory. There is a couple I know who are very, very conservative; they hate Clinton and love Bush, and tend to be right-wing mostly across the line. And they like Obama.

If Obama can dodge Hillary and stride out in front without getting too sullied in the primary process, then he stands to be a major threat to John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Early polls show him doing not much better than Hillary against them, but then again, Hillary has huge name recognition and Obama still has relatively little. Give him a national stage and time, and he’ll start steamrolling.

Well, that happened. Right now Obama is neck-and-neck with Hillary in most polls, and has the momentum. It helps that Kucinich told his people to make Obama a second choice; Kucinich is bound to be eliminated, and his people, while few, are enthusiastic, and did very well for Edwards in Iowa in 2004. Obama is doing pretty well in New Hampshire, given Hillary’s front-runner lead in that state–in some polls, Obama is very close to Clinton, and if he wins and she loses in Iowa, Obama could jump ahead very easily. Clinton has a huge lead in Michigan, but only because Obama and Edwards pulled out at the behest of the party; Michigan will be discounted. And in the next big test, South Carolina, Obama and Hillary are neck-and-neck. Again, Iowa could give Obama a boost to make him the early front-runner, and give him momentum he could ride to the candidacy.

Next post: why I am encouraged by Obama specifically.