Lean and crisp, intent and well-spoken, he trumped his opponents with an understated charisma that would do his party well in the general election. He has the kind of quiet voltage when he walks into a room -- and when he spoke -- all in the luncheon crowd of partisans quieted to hear what he had to say.

Not that there was anything strikingly different on the issues to distinguish him from the pack. The Democratic Party is so ingrained in liberalism that all its candidates borrow from the national mantra, crusading for massive outpourings of federal money, attacking so-called special interests by which they mean the private sector, picking on the rich who pay most of the taxes and assailing jobs going overseas without prescribing a remedy. Obama didn't differ from the other candidates in content (indeed, he's probably more liberal), but his soft understatement and familiarity with legislation carried the day.

All the Democratic candidates were present except Blair Hull. Here's one man's view of the others.

The best speaker, with Hubert Humphrey-like rapid-fire delivery, was Gery Chico, the former president of the Chicago Board of Education. He performed like a lawyer addressing a jury but he pandered on the trade issue without supplying many details -- such as ''stop trading with developing nations which have a wide differential.'' Huh? He didn't develop his views.

The candidate who appears to have shown the greatest improvement is Dan Hynes, the state comptroller. I give him second place to Obama. He was the only one who showed a flash of courage by zinging the powerful personal injury bar, advocating ''stopping frivolous lawsuits by penalizing the lawyers who file them'' -- although he didn't say how.

I was greatly disappointed at Maria Pappas' performance. Of all the Democratic candidates, I know her best. She was terrific when she ran as an outsider for president of the Cook County Board. Her fiery campaign marked her as a comer, but now that she's with the establishment, as Cook County treasurer, she seems to have settled back. Her best line was that George W. Bush would hate to face her on budget issues. Very true, but she's not running for president, just junior senator from Illinois.

Candidates in the top tier at the debate were Obama, Hynes, Chico and Pappas. The others appear to be running to get future exposure. Joyce Washington, who unsuccessfully sought lieutenant governor in 2002, gives a generalized answer to most questions, specializing in reciting her health care resume. Nancy Skinner comes across with verve and fire. A radio talk show professional, she is a dogmatic and colorful speaker without money who lists as her qualifications having been a successful gladiator on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox. Sorry, there must be more than that to her but she wasn't giving us many more details.

When the debate concluded, it was certain that on the issues, if you put all the candidates in a paper bag, shake it up and pull one out, you would have the same-old, same-old. Statist liberalism is dreary monotony in a party that once boasted Paul Douglas, Richard J. Daley, Harold Washington, Eddie Vrdolyak and Glenn Poshard (for whom I voted in 1998). Yes, Obama espouses the same liberal playbook, but as the song goes, ''There's something in the way he moves me'' that stirs excitement, even in this old conservative breast. My guess is the party will nominate Dan Hynes, son of Chicago ward boss Tom Hynes, and what was once a party of diversity and change will continue to plod on to boring ignominy.

I acknowledge the kidnapping and suffering of my African ancestors, and the resultant decades of slavery, oppresion, and discrimination that amounted to a monstrous crime for them. But the result was me and my family living in a nation that provides the most liberty and opportunity for any African descended people on earth. I am profoundly grateful to be here. I welcome the opportunity for any clarifcation of the historical record, and should that clarification reveal more evidence of the often bestial nature of the American institution of slavery, than we should unflinchingly face and acknowledge it. The historical record should be properly contextualized, and honestly examined without any attempt to inflate the crime beyond the actual truth of the injustice. The endless racial navel gazing, racial identity posturing, and puffed up grievance mongering should be rejected for the PC irrelevance that it is.

Sometimes it seems as though the race industry merchants and class action lawyers would divide us into warring ethnic enclaves with mortar pits in the streets sniping at each other ala the Balkans, all of them seeking racial spoils with government help. This is nothing more than a cultural Marxist wealth redistribution scheme.

The notion that “so many” Republicans voted in the Democratic primary this year, that their “enthusiasm” on primary day showed how angry they are at President Bush and that this will “spell trouble” in November is flat wrong. The facts from Tuesday’s exit polls provide some objectivity: a higher percentage of Democrats voted in the Republican primary in 2000 (4%), than Republicans voted in the Democratic primary this year (3%). And in 2000, there was a seriously contested Democratic primary between Gore and Bradley to keep Democrats interested. More voters cast ballots in the relatively uncontested Republican primary this year than cast ballots in the uncontested Republican primary in 1984 when Reagan ran for re-election.

President Bush received a higher percentage of the vote this time (88%) than Reagan won in 1984 (86%). In fact, Bush received a higher percentage than Clinton received in his uncontested Democratic primary in 1996 (84%).

While the majority of Democratic voters on Election Day in New Hampshire held unfavorable views of President Bush, they did not consider themselves angry. Despite the Democratic candidates’ best efforts; only 49% of the voters described themselves as angry, while a majority said they were not angry.

When you compare where public opinion polls had John Kerry last April with where he was on election night, the numbers are nearly identical. Kerry was polling at 35% or 36% last April. Then the Dean “outsider” candidacy emerged, floundered, and recovered a bit, but Kerry ended up exactly where he started. There was no expansion in enthusiasm. The Democrats merely returned to the safe, old, standby. Kerry fills the role of a traditional Democratic choice after the thrill of the Dean candidacy wore off.

Finally, per my memos from last April and November, expect us to be behind at some point in the coming weeks because of the closely divided nature of the country. This is something we have long expected, and when the nominee is nearly secure for the Democrats, they will (as Kerry has already) get a tremendous amount of positive press coverage nationally.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

==>Ronald Reagan-Farewell Address to the Nation