The pieces in question are a bit too erudite for me to really take issue with, but I think brilliant polymath Richard Yeselson is right to say that Obama has constructed a usable vision of the past that situates his candidacy in a long tradition of social movements and struggles for justice, while brilliant polymath John Judis is right to say that lots of people are understanding Obama as an Adamic figure totally disconnected from the struggles and tensions of the past. This is probably the best of all possible worlds, as what you want is for the candidate to have the sophisticated, quasi-radical take as to what his presidency means while the public thinks it's all pretty inspiring and unthreatening.
