I’m beginning to wonder when I will be able to read an editorial about Sen. Obama’s candidacy without seeing the word “hype.” Mr. Feder is correct in explaining that winning a party nomination is not necessarily dependent on the amount of money in one’s war chest, but he is far from correct in downplaying the significance of Sen. Obama’s candidacy. Mr. Feder fails to note that Sen. Obama had twice as many campaign contributors as Sen. Clinton and also that 90% of donations made to the Obama campaign were under $100. Money doesn’t buy the nomination, but fundraising statistics don’t lie. Sen. Obama has a wide base of support, and his supporters will be more likely and more able to donate to his campaign in the future.

But, the weakness of Mr. Feder’s argument underscores Sen. Obama’s strength more than any fundraising totals could. Yes, Senator Obama is young, and not as experienced as other contenders. However, leadership and judgment are not contingent on age and experience.

I fail to see how a man who foresaw quagmire in Iraq is criticized as na’ve while Sen. Edwards and Sen. Clinton, who authorized war in Iraq, are praised for their skilled judgment. Mr. Feder wrongfully emancipates Edwards and Clinton from their error by citing “dynamic party and political stress.”

Apparently, principled judgment takes a back seat to party politics in Mr. Feder’s ideal America. If Sen. Obama was as weak a candidate as Mr. Feder claims, then Mr. Feder would be able to do better than slap his name on an anti-Obama talking point mad-lib circulated by the Democratic Party’s ancient regime.

Chris Boyer

sophomore in LAS