As I see it, the justifications for Obama's candidacy boil down to two words: judgment and change.
Change. Well, the appeal of change should be obvious. Who doesn't want change we can believe in?
Substantively, the word change means little. Any non-incumbent candidate is a bearer of change. However, in fairness to Obama and his supporters, they mean change from the Bush/Republican policies, which, they argue, would be largely continued in a McCain presidency.
Okay, change, but change to what? Despite Obama's rhetoric of moderation, the substantive change he advocates is the run-of-the-mill liberal positions. And, many of those positions aren't very popular in the center/center-right US. Hence, the mantra of change. With Bush's approval ratings in the gutter and substantial majorities saying the US is going in the wrong direction, change is very attractive. Obama and his campaign are smart, so they wrap their positions in the mantle of change and hope the American people won't look too closely to the actual change Obama wants to create.
Its nothing but the pre-Clinton Democratic positions dressed up in fancy new duds. Yes, I did use the words duds--its a fun word, you should try it sometime.
Judgment. This justification provides well needed comedic breaks. Let's actually look at Obama's judgment (or the little that is available to test it against). First, the only major issue that has confronted Obama after his entry onto the national stage is the surge in Iraq. What was his judgment? Obama specifically and repeatedly stated that an influx of American troops will do little or nothing to calm down the violence and will not help bring about the necessary Iraqi political reforms.
What has actually happened? A enormous reduction in American casualties, Iraqi civilian deaths, and attacks of all types. Oops, he was wrong on that point. What else happened? Because of the greater security gained by the increase in US troops, the Iraqi's have actually succeeded on many, if not most, of the needed political reforms. Oops again.
Well, what about Obama's initial opposition to the war? Doesn't he get credit for that? Nope. Obama was a lowly state senator from a liberal district in Illinois. He had little access to the actual information that the true decision makers (Congress and the President) had. If anything, he had a lucky guess. In addition, he was from an extremely liberal district. It is much more reasonable to conclude that his decision was a result of his pre-set beliefs and sensitivity to the preferences of his very liberal district than evidence of some Solomonic judgment on his part as his supporters like to claim. To sum up on this point, on the primary issue that Obama was faced with--the surge--Obama failed miserably in his judgment. His one potential claim to good judgment is a wash at best.
Let's take a different look at Obama's judgment. Isn't it curious how for a man with such supposed judgment, he failed utterly with some of his closest friends/mentors? Obama's pastor and mentor of 20 years is a racist, conspiracy nut preacher (Yes, Wright runs many good outreach programs, but he still is a crazy loon). Now, Obama claims this "isn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew." Well, if you can't get to truly "know" a person after 20 years as his mentee, then Obama must have some of the worst judgment a person can have. Same with Tony Rezko. It wasn't the "Rezko he knew." Curious, isn't it?
To sum up, Obama's promotion of change is just the old liberal line in a brand new package. Obama's supposed judgment can't even pass the laugh test. Notably, this is the evidence of his judgment from the short time he has been on the national stage. God help us if he is given more opportunities to show it off.