So it's not about issues, eh?

The news media, not to mention the Clinton campaign, have been reiterating the line that Obama’s appeal is rooted in that candidate’s superb oratorical skills. At the same, Obama’s adversaries claim that he offers nothing more specific than “change” to his prospective voters. Some commentators (Rush Limbaugh, for example) go so far as to suggest that Obama is a political tabula rasa, upon which voters inscribe their own idiosyncratic policy preferences. So I was surprised to read the following in tonight’s New York Times story on the outcome of the Wisconsin primary:

Almost two-thirds [of polled Wisconsin Democratic primary voters] said Mr. Obama would be more likely to unite the country and about 55 percent considered him more likely to improve foreign relations.

Uniting the country is no small thing, even if it is not, strictly speaking, a policy issue. Few presidents have changed the tenor of public discourse--Reagan was arguably the last--a not insignificant accomplishment in a deliberative democracy such as ours. Further, as an African American, Obama may be uniquely suited among current American elected officials to bridge some of the racial divisions that still exist in this country. Yet the poll results do demonstrate that Obama’s appeal extends to the area of hard policy. That 55 percent who expressed confidence in Obama’s approach to foreign affairs may be more in tune with the candidate than many pundits are willing to admit. After all, Obama has expressed his willingness to open high-level talks with some of the country’s adversaries in the Islamic world, a gesture that, if realized, will express a renewed attitude of American humility in world affairs. Nor can anyone doubt the steadfastness of his opposition to U.S. saber rattling in the Middle East. The same cannot be said for Clinton, who remains much more hawkish on Iran than the situation may warrant.