Do you agree with Krautheimer's analysis of Democrats' unease about not really knowing who Obama is?

Obama has been vetted for the last 19 months.

if you still don't know enough about Barack Obama you are a dumb@ss!!

I think the national security rationale is a good one for Benghazi, and a bad one for the AP and IRS scandals. There is no story with Benghazi, and proving that there is nothing to it would probably harm embassy security (which hasn't been all that good in the years preceding Obama either). I think the IRS scandal will turn out to be nothing much as well, but the people have the right to know what happened and it should be explored further--and if the public's perception of the story the press is putting out is close to the mark, then there are serious problems to fix. (If reality doesn't match the current version, I can think of abuses of power by the republicans, but as you point out, it doesn't do a lot of good to point out all the times your opponents disregard the Constitution and American principles when your side is going to do the same thing.) The AP scandal is the most interesting out these. Like Bush could have when he was called out by the libs on Gitmo and Valerie Plame, this is a chance for Obama to take charge and take responsibility. If he leads the government well and sets up good anti-snooping/privacy protection laws (for everyone, not just the government) and brings the government in line with that as best he can, then he can squash that scandal by turning it into an opportunity. If he leads in the other direction and decides to let everyone use any information they can get their hands on against anyone, he is going to seriously harm the Democrats and help the radically anti-government nutcases gain support. I think the way he handles that one scandal will define his administration--the other 'scandals', Obamacare, Bin Laden--none of that will matter--all that will matter is whether Americans still think they are living in one of the most free nations on earth--and how he handles that will be the test. We need to decide--is wikileaks the future of news, is suppression the future of news, or are we going to try to find a well-balanced middle ground (between free/dishonest and controlled/responsible, not left and right) again?

The interesting thing is that we've had respected individuals step forward, Republicans and Democrats alike, attesting to Obama's character yet their opinion hasn't been given the national stage.

While relatively new to the national spotlight, Obama's work of 8 years as a state legislature, during which he helped pass crucial reform, has gone largely ignored. As if those accomplishments are irrelevant:

Excerpt rom an article by Charles Peters, "Judge Him By His Laws":

"“People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.”

Would it have been "better" had Obama been in the Senate for two more terms? Who is to say? The spin then could easily have been "He's a Washington insider."

Keep in mind that Edward was VERY new to the Senate when he first chose to run in 2004 yet his so-called "inexperience" NEVER came into question. Not even once.

That was not a concern for Bush, whose experience was solely as a 6-year governor. Impressive, yes, but the reality that the "Bush" name gave him is opportunity is hardly arguable.

I believe that the "unease" is not among Democrats but people who tend to vote AS Democrats. There is a difference.

Ultimately, it's very easy to "not know" someone, especially if you CHOOSE not to.

Below is the link to the above mentioned article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Actually I think tere has been more coverage of and reporting on, who Obama is than any other candidate in history. There has been all the media scrutiny plus the internet coverage, as well as the campaigning for 19 months and the Obama website and the focus of the convention was on who the Obamas are. If you don't know much about him still you just don't want to. If you are uncomfortable with supporting someone you don't know how well do we know Palin?

Charles Krautheimer is one of the few real journalists left. I respect him because he thinks before he speaks. I totally agree with his analysis. Wish I could say it as well. But then, I wouldn't be sitting here if I could, would I!

In my very humble opinion, i think the Dems are having a case of buyer's remorse. Super Tuesday was when so many delegates were elected that afterwards everything was downhill. And Super Tuesday was in February, before anyone was really interested in vetting Obama. At the time, the candidate that seemed headed to the coronation was Hillary, and she was the issue. What a surprise to wake up, find out Obama was going to be the nominee....without the Dems really knowing about him.

Charlie is just an ugly little man.

Both inside and out.

And since when do Dems need him to 'express' their fears or unease? It's like Michael Moore 'speaking for' Republicans.

Lol.

well first of all you should make your questions shorter.....

All I will say is the Dem's are supporting him on party lines only. Get real who really think the Clinton's like him.

I would not vote for B. HO for dog catcher, it would insult all the other dog catchers.

Not a problem.. when doubts arise they just take another sip of their (mind numbing) Kool-Aid...

Yep. The man is a joke,they are now seeing it. So there answer is to bash Palin.. What a sorry bunch...