No more Barack talk until Nov. 8th.

On Thursday, I went to the NY Times Op-Ed page and I thought I was hallucinating. I was staring at David Brooks's column but it was titled "Run, Barack, Run." Why? Huh? What? As I read the article, I gave serious thought to writing a letter to the alien that had taken over his body to return the real David Brooks.

Coming from my own perspective, I should note that I disagree with many of Obama’s notions and could well end up agreeing more with one of his opponents. But anyone who’s observed him closely can see that Obama is a new kind of politician. As Klein once observed, he’s that rarest of creatures: a megahyped phenomenon that lives up to the hype.

What? Huh? Why are you writing this, David Brooks? More importantly, why aren't you writing about the upcoming elections?

Before I had real time to process this -- we all know that Ugly Betty and Grey's are on Thursday nights -- Saturday's Times came around with Maureen Dowd's latest column, "Obama's Project Runway." Here, Dowd ruminated on celebrity and politics and asked the question, "[S]hould Barack Obama stop lounging around in fashion magazines and do some honest work, like running for president?"

“Politics sometimes blends in with celebrity,” he told Oprah this week. “And it gobbles you up because the tendency is for people to want to see you perform and say what they want to hear, as opposed to you trying to stay in touch with, you know, that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside.” Doesn’t he see that when you express this skepticism on Oprah it is not skepticism at all?

Super, Maureen Dowd. (Am I alone in thinking that Maureen Dowd, while a gifted writer, often seems to write about the obvious?) But aren't you excited about the Dem surge in the polls? What about the close Senate races? I mean, the 2006 election is a bit more pressing and yet everyone's already talking about 2008.

So, David Brooks wants Barack to run. Maureen Dowd wants him to "to think about whether he really wants to be president, or whether he’s just getting swept away by people who want him to do it." Anyone else want to chime in on Obama or can we return to the situation at hand?

Sunday rolled around and it seemed like we might not be finished with Barack Obama. In the Sunday Times, Frank Rich jumped on the Obam-wagon with "Obama is Not a Miracle Elixir." I love Frank Rich. He's a terrific writer who, unlike Ms. Dowd, often makes me stop a say, "Wow, good point!" I loved his opening to this column:

THE Democrats are so brilliant at yanking defeat from the jaws of victory that it still seems unimaginable that they might win on Nov. 7. But even the most congenital skeptic has to face that possibility now. Things have gotten so bad for the Republicans that were President Bush to unveil Osama bin Laden’s corpse in the Rose Garden, some reporter would instantly check to see if his last meal had been on Jack Abramoff’s tab.

Funny and timely! But then he gets into the Barack talk. He starts with the craze around Obama then goes on to call Obama's big decision of whether to run for President a "no-brainer." He brushes away Obama's thin resume and instead shows more concern about the Democratic Party's effect on people. Rich worries that more time in the Senate will "likely to transform an unusually eloquent writer, speaker and public servant into another windbag like Joe Biden." (Tee!) Rich doesn't want that and hopes that "Barack Obama steps up and changes the party before the party of terminal timidity and equivocation changes him."

I agree that the Democratic Party needs leadership, a spine, and a platform. It's frustrating to not have a party that adequately represents my political beliefs. Instead, I feel like a contestant on The Price is Right who needs to get closest without going over. My favorite part of Rich's column had little to do with Barack and everything to do with the Democratic Party's need for leadership.

That’s the one lesson it should learn from George Bush. Call him arrogant or misguided or foolish, this president has been a leader. He had a controversial agenda — enacting big tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, waging “pre-emptive” war, packing the courts with judges who support his elisions of constitutional rights — and he didn’t fudge it. He didn’t care if half the country despised him along the way.

Good point, Mr. Rich. The Dems need to stop attempting to be everything to everyone because, in the current political climate, that's impossible. They need to stop caring if half the country despises them, particularly if that half is already well-represented by the Republican Party.

But I digress. Back to Barack. Today's Times features "The Obama Bandwagon" (I prefer my invention, The Obam-wagon) by Bob Herbert. He mentions the hype around Obama and concedes that it may be justified. But then Herbert stops being polite and starts getting real:

But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check. There’s a reason why so many Republicans [That explains David Brooks!] are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run. They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender résumé, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy — and who also happens to be black. The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008.

In the end, Herbert advises Obama "not to move too fast." And I agree. I like Barack Obama a whole lot. He's everything everyone says he is, and probably even more. He would make a great President one day. But I don't think that day is now or even within the next two years. I was worried that when Cocktober Surprise (TM Wonkette) happened, the Dems were peaking too soon. And that was four weeks before the election. All this Barack talk is WAY too soon. It's got nowhere to go but down. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for saying what I've been thinking.

Who does that leave for the Dems? I'm not sure. I think Senator Clinton would be a great President but I recognize the difficulties there. I know that a lot of people -- even Democrats -- have a sudden, negative reaction to her, but I think that smacks of sexism. (If you disagree, come up with a politician who evokes the same ire. Maybe W? I would suggest that he's done significantly more to deserve it than Clinton.) But that's a conversation for another time. For now, let's just all shut up about Barack Obama and the 2008 elections and instead concentrate on not "yanking defeat from the jaws of victory," as Frank Rich so eloquently put it.

Don't forget to vote on November 7th, either in person or by absentee ballot! (Unless you're a Republican from Missouri, NJ, Tennessee, Ohio, or Virginia.)

[I just realized that you won't be able to read any of these columns if you don't have TimesSelect. Contact me if you'd really like to read any of them in their entirety and I'll see what I can do.]