Despite Op-Ed, Reagan and Obama Vastly Different People

The Chicago Tribune published an op-ed in which the author, Robert Schmuhl, tries to establish parallels between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.  Needless to say, there's just no substantive comparison.  This is for the most part admitted by the author:

In terms of political philosophy, professional background and racial heritage, Obama and Reagan are distinctly different, one a figure of the new century and the other a representative of the previous one.

Schmuhl bases much of his argument by looking at non-substantitive similarities like familial, career and communication abilities.  He also points out that both Obama and Reagan were ambitious figures and had written autobiographies prior to becoming presidential candidates -- assuming Obama elects to make the race.  Schmuhl considers such parallels as "striking," only to then add the following:

Are such parallels predictive? Of course not. The disparity between Reagan and Obama in governmental experience is profound. Eight years as governor of the country's most populous state is executive training that eight years in the Illinois state Senate and less than a full term in the U.S. Senate could never offer. And other differences abound.

This statement sort of begs the question as to why Schmuhl would argue that they have "striking parallels" only to turn around and admit that such parallels are not predictive, particularly in the face of the significant differences in experience and political philosophy?  I'm just cynical enough to believe that this piece has been written by Schmuhl simply to add grist to the Obama myth and legend -- that he is a singular figure of our time whose political philosophy, life experiences and talents make him uniquely qualified to unite those of disparate ideologies and backgrounds into some kind of American mosaic where red and blue gives way to purple.  I'm also cynical enough to believe that the following statement made by Obama was a premeditated attempt to lend credence to the myth himself:

Then, waxing more philosophical, Obama addressed the broader, cultural significance. "When I think about great presidents," he said, "I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ourselves, that's who we are. And ... you know, there are circumstances in which I would argue Ronald Reagan was a very successful president."

Why, how liberal can he really be if he can find it in his heart to praise Ronald Reagan who, next to George W. Bush, is the very bane of gnashing-teeth liberals everywhere?  I also find it telling that, during his campaign for the United States Senate, Obama sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate to create an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit, frequently arguing that none other than President Ronald Reagan championed the credit at the federal level.  Even then, the myth was being laid.

Should he choose to run, whatever talents and abilities Obama possesses will emerge during the daily grind and bitter sniping of a presidential campaign.  I'm growing weary of attempts being made to burnish his credentials as a uniter for whom traditional political labels are inapplicable.  Being a political junkie from Illinois and somewhat familiar with Obama, I can offer that Obama is an intelligent, articulate and amiable fellow, but he is also a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of big city, leftist ideology.  That's just the nature of the district he used to represent in the Illinois Senate.  At some point he will have to run on his record.  When he does, the myths, legends and fairy tales will come crashing down.