This is not a balanced piece. Instead of an informative news article with context and not only strengths of the subject (Jindal) but also weaknesses, we have a laudatory and uncritical "news" piece with plenty of "spin." Worse, the writer tries to co-opt Obama's positive characteristics in favor of Jindal although if you read the whole thing, you realize Jindal's philosophy is not at all like Obama's. This is simply one of the least balanced articles I've read about anybody in the campaign, a stretch even for the WSJ. If the WSJ keeps this up, we're all going to gag before the election is over.

Good intro to Gov. Jindal, if you don't know him (as I didn't).

Goodness! "The similarities between... Gov. Jindal and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are tantalizing to many in the Grand Old Party." Like what, how, says who? There's a nagging whiff implied in this article that the Republicans, in a deficient, racially tinged imitation of the Democrats, may have found their version of a "dark skinned" person to add to their ticket in an attempt to stay competitive with the Democrats. A word of advise to the writers: I would be more careful next time addressing this type point. The line is at best idiotic and irresponsible, because it just sits there, without explanation, a proper analogy, or factual corroboration. With respect to McCain: the writers, being US press, all institutionally and ... More »

It paints Jindal as a great success when in reality, many of his ethics reforms have no teeth. And he does not have the charisma of Obama. That's almost like comparing Dan Quayle to JFK.

A brief, but good look at at least to me, is an unknown possible candidate. The article does well at stating the obvious: Some in the GOP see him as their "Obama", even though some interviewed say that's not the case. Also, they don't hide any of the warts, i.e. he's for "intelligent design", etc. Good, informative, and balanced article.