It is fascinating to me that one of the descriptions of Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful Barak Obama is that he is an empty vessel. Far from being an insult, it is perhaps one of the greatest compliments in politics. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King are men that certainly fall into that category. They were plain spoken men, empty of ego and pomp; men of strength that seemed to reach a little further than the rest of us, men through whom all of us can see a bit of ourselves. In fact, the label empty vessel is actually a misnomer because it really means to be filled to overflowing. We, his audience, dip our ladles and pull from him our hopes, ideas and ambitions.

These are admirable qualities and more rare than we would like in our politicians. Bill Clinton approached this apogee when he “felt our pain,” but there was something a bit insincere about Clinton. Even among his supporters, there was a sneaking suspicion that he was “running game.” Obama is smooth without being slick. He appears a humble man that is approachable -- a regular guy. Americans envision this is a man not above standing in the kitchen in old slippers whipping up a grilled cheese sandwich. Ironically enough, it is a quality reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, the great communicator.

The ability to articulate the hopes and aspirations of everyday Americans was indeed one of Reagan’s strengths. In plain language, he was able to articulate a vision that resonated with the vast majority of Americans. He was loved because he was seen as a man of conviction that was comfortable in his own skin and yet did not take himself too seriously. Do the times define great men or do great men define their times? It is an age old question. Reagan was, without question, a man at the right place at the right time in history with the right message of hope and strength. Is Obama the man for our times?

Beyond the clear resonance of Obama’s rhetoric, it remains to be seen if he can fill the shoes of a Ronald Reagan. Or even a George Bush while we are at it.

Aside from unpretentiousness, great leaders like Lincoln, Reagan and King were able to correctly identify the enemy at the gates, and more importantly were willing to do what was necessary to be victorious. These men understood that appeasement and popularity are not the path to victory but the slow road to defeat. Lincoln waged war to end the evil of slavery, King confronted the evil of segregation and Reagan stood unflinchingly before the Soviet Union. George Bush as well, though he is at pains to articulate the fight has been mostly correct in identifying the enemy.

It remains unclear whether Obama has fully grasped the true call of the times, to whit that this nation is engaged in a larger war against Islamic extremists, who are intent on absorbing Europe, leveling Israel, and destroying America.

Obama has made much of the fact that he has never supported the war in Iraq and has co- sponsored legislation that will bring the troops currently in Iraq home by the spring of next year. His rhetoric becomes rather thin, however, when the question of “what next” arises. In fact it is not clear that he is even convinced that there is a broader war outside of Iraq. If so what is his plan? Reagan said peace through strength. Lincoln sought a new birth of freedom. What is Obama’s guiding principle that will steer him and lead this nation to victory?

In an epic battle for nation and culture more than audacity is required. The times demand leadership that inspires, motivates and builds. Humility and brains are admirable, but they are not enough. You see, I recall another political new comer that was bright, and plain spoken. He was a good man. His name was Jimmy Carter.