He’s mobilized youth to previously unprecedented levels, shattered fund-raising records with an Internet-enabled army of small-dollar donors, and made many impassioned calls for sweeping changes  in Washington. But can Obama really transform the cynical, self-interested, and frequently factious nature of politics, while bringing new levels of transparency and participation to the process?

Three recent articles in the NYTimes cast some doubt on Obama’s ability to can adequately distance himself and his campaign from the worst elements of big-money politics , let alone change the broader equation.

The first article describes Obama’s about face on Bush’s domestic wiretapping scandal. After denouncing the wiretapping program during his primary campaign, Obama is now supporting legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration to eavesdrop on citizens without warrants. Critics see it as evidence that Obama is now making the same Washington-style compromises that he campaigned vehemently against. Supporters, meanwhile, are asking themselves what happened to the “change we can believe in.” In fact, some 16,000 supporters have organized a protest on Obama’s own homepage, asking him to revisit his stance on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)–evidence, at least, that when it comes to providing an open forum for debate and dissent, Obama has lived up to his principles.

The second article discusses Obama’s decision to bypass public financing for the general election and thus free himself to seek out more lucrative sources of private funding. The decision marks another reversal of policy and is perhaps a further indication that Obama is having a hard time resisting the intoxicating lure of big-money politics as the realities of Washington set in.

The Obama campaign cites the record sums raised from a broad base of small-dollar donors as justification for the decision. But campaign finance experts see it as evidence that Obama is gearing up to embark on a spree of pricey fund-raising events across the country–events that will tap the resources of the large, deep-pocketed donors  who have traditionally supported the Democratic party. It turns out that as the intensity of the primaries died off, so too did the long tail of political contributions.

The third article concerns Obama’s recent ambivalence over the withdrawal of troops from Iraq after visiting with commanders on the ground. Having initially promised to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office, his timetable now seems a great deal more flexible. His steadfast opposition to the war has been a central component of his candidacy, so supporters are naturally suspicious of what appears to be yet another retreat from his principles.

What does it all mean?

For optimists, Obama still represents America’s best hope in over a generation to elect a candidate with the vision and willpower to usher in a more transparent, inclusive and participatory breed of politics. For cynics, his campaign antics are at best naive and at worst disingenuous. Naive if he really believes that as president he can do much reverse the long historical trend that has seen organized interest groups hold increasing sway over the political process and disingenuous for selling false hope while knowing all-too-well that the Washington’s political machinery will not be easily or quickly dismantled.

Which camp are you in? Are you optimistic about the prospects for change or are you cynical? Are Obama’s recent compromises ultimately pragmatic and justifiable, or do they represent a bretayal of the political principles that he has championed?