I keep hearing the sentiment from non-supporters that Obama is naive, that he doesn't have a record of bringing about big changes in government- essentially that there's no reason we should trust him. After all, a lot of candidates campaign on the premise of "change" and usually nothing gets done. So I thought I'd outline the ways in which I think Obama is different from your standard politician promising change.
- From a personal perspective, Obama is extremely stable and emotionally healthy. It is very easy to talk about working in a bipartisan way, or reaching out to people you disagree with. But actually understanding what causes someone to have a starkly different viewpoint from your own requires a level of insight, honesty, and security in your own positions that few people have. I think Obama most clearly demonstrated that he is capable of fully understanding the subtleties of a complicated conflict with his race speech, but there have been many moments along the campaign when I have thought to myself "this man is just really wise".
- Obama, unlike his past and present competition, isn't framing himself as personally bringing about all the changes he wants, even if he's elected president. He seems to see himself as a leader of a mass popular movement rather than some sort of uber-politician who can miraculously pass all the legislation he personally wants, regardless of the traditional legislative obstacles that stand in his way. This makes him vastly different from most candidates for president, who usually present their platform pretty clearly but provide few indicators for how they're actually going to get such legislation passed (beyond vague statements of "working together"). Of course, this people-powered path of legislative change only makes any sense if you can actually get people to get off the couch...the leader needs to be inspirational. Fortunately, the one thing everyone seems to be able to agree with is that Obama is incredibly inspiring - his ability to motivate activists has been broadly praised and decried, depending on who was doing the talking.
- Obama is funded by many small donors. I think we cannot overestimate the effect this will have on his campaign and actions as president. For so long big donors and special interests, who have few votes in an actual election, have been vastly overrepresented due to their ability to donate. The politician then has two bases with competing interests - the people who voted for him/her and the people who funded him/her. But for Obama these bases are mostly overlapping. Although most politicians claim to be a servant of the people, Obama really is - we're paying his bills. If he pisses us off, we can stop contributing. If he really makes us happy, we can contribute a lot. Rarely do the people on the ground have so much influence over the leader at the top.
There are lots of other differences (please point them out in the comments) but these are the three main ones that, for me personally, make me trust Obama when I wouldn't trust someone else.