:::Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins.  But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time after he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech.  Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker.  That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage. 

 :::I do have that timeline straight.  My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few months later, not two years later.  Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified.   I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points. 

 :::Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been. 

 :::To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"?  After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above.  Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves?  Could we get quotes featuring a couple of those usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here?