Off-Message Political Observation

David Brooks, Conservative columnist for The New York Times, opines that Barack Obama has something of a "split personality":

On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. [...] He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Mr. Brooks then goes on to give the necessary pertinent examples.

What I found odd about the entire piece is why Mr. Brooks — one of the most politically savvy guys on the planet — would waste so much as a column inch pointing out this "split personality." Every politician — that is, every successful politician — is an ambitious, Machiavellian Fast Eddie under the skin. It's a given. He (or she) has to be in order to succeed. Our democratic election process practically requires it. What that election process doesn't require — in fact almost discourages — is that other side. You know, the "too intelligent" side.

I ask you, How can that given Fast Eddie be "too intelligent" to occupy the office of President Of The United States, the most powerful office in the world? The very idea is mind-boggling. And what's amiss with that "too intelligent" Fast Eddie also being a "high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier...capable of thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now"?

Not a damn thing I can think of.

I confess I've voted in a federal election exactly once in my life — in 1960 when I enthusiastically cast my vote for that other "too intelligent," "high-minded ... speechifier ... capable of thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now": John Fitzgerald Kennedy. When he was murdered, my hope for America was murdered along with him, and no candidate since then seemed capable of filling the void.

Until now, that is.

I further confess that, this year, even if the Democrats nominated Mickey Mouse as their candidate in Denver come this 25th of August, I would go to the polls for the first time since 1960 come November, and cast my vote for him. But as things stand now, and barring anything really untoward being revealed between now and then, I can go to the polls this November and cast my vote for the Democrat candidate with a perfectly clean conscience and a new sense of hope for America. It's not that I agree with everything Mr. Obama has to say. It's rather that it's become crystal clear to me that he has what it takes to be a genuine leader, even a great leader: a charismatic, riveting podium presence; a sharp, intuitive, and practical political sense; and clear-eyed, imaginative intelligence to spare. Those are the three fundamental and unacquirable gifts. Whatever Mr. Obama might lack in specific expertise and detailed insight can be rented or bought as needed whenever and wherever required.

Cheer up!, America. Things are looking up.