Obama the new Lincoln?

Interesting article by Gary Wills in the NYRB:

Two men, two speeches. The men, both lawyers, both from Illinois, were seeking the presidency, despite what seemed their crippling connection with extremists. Each was young by modern standards for a president... Their political experience was mainly provincial, in the Illinois legislature for both of them, and they had received little exposure at the national level—two years in the House of Representatives for Lincoln, four years in the Senate for Obama. Yet each was seeking his party's nomination against a New York senator of longer standing and greater prior reputation—Lincoln against Senator William Seward, Obama against Senator Hillary Clinton. They were both known for having opposed an initially popular war—Lincoln against President Polk's Mexican War, raised on the basis of a fictitious provocation; Obama against President Bush's Iraq War, launched on false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and had made an alliance with Osama bin Laden.

He goes on to compare the two speeches. The parallels are there, but how should we interpret them? Heroes serve an important political function. Human societies need to create great leaders to incarnate--literally--nations and movements and ideas. Thus casting Obama as a leader for change is vital for building the political movement that will improve this country. But if we have learned anything over the last 8 years it is the danger of overreaching, and that is why I ultimately find this kind of article at best self-indulgent and, at worst, dangerous.

By all means let us sing Obama's praises. But hold off on the deification until AFTER he has saved us. By jumping the gun we only set ourselves up for failure and disillusionment.