he’s got game

Today—as opposed to 18 months ago, when Obama was launched as the Messiah—pretty much everybody who matters agrees that Barack Obama is (as I’ve been saying for a while) the coolest Machiavellian dude in the presidential race.

David Brooks launched the debate by positing a “Fast Eddie” Obama (as a peer of “Slick Willie” Clinton).

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Ann Althouse digs deep into Obama’s dissembling and sees a positive sign. Note her response to one of her readers:

mporcius said…”Ann likes that Obama has betrayed a pledge about or changed his mind about campaign financing because Ann doesn’t want to give up on the war effort in Iraq. Ann wants to believe that Obama will change his mind about Iraq (or that he has been lying the whole time) and when Obama pulls something like this, Ann is encouraged.”

[Althouse answers:]That’s basically the answer. In fact, I think Obama may be a better bet than McCain on Iraq.

My number 1 concern about Obama is that he won’t check the Democratic Congress. But I’m not confident that McCain will either.

Look, you can’t trust either man completely. You can’t trust anyone running for President. Remember when George Bush assured us that he opposed nation building?

Jonah Goldberg pokes the biggest hole in Brooks’s and Althouse’s “theory.” He points out that being a great in-fighter and ruthless politician does not make you adept at handling foreign policy:

But it’s worth noting that being cutthroat and savvy in electoral politics doesn’t necessarily translate into being cutthroat and savvy, never mind wise, in power. George W. Bush — we’ve been told — was ruthless in getting elected. When in power, he discovered Putin’s soul. (Bush’s dad, who did what it took to crush Dukakis, is a better example of Brooks’ fast-eddie thesis). Ted Kennedy is arguably the most ruthless politician in America, that hardly means he’d be a great foreign policy president. In fact, I would argue that despite Kennedy’s toughminded political cynicism, he’s still naive about foreign policy. If Brooks is right about Obama’s campaign smarts, my guess is that Obama would still be naive about foreign policy. All his throw-’em-under-the-truck maneuvering is likely rationalized by his desire to “do good” once elected. And that do-goodery is not (necessarily) any less naive simply because he’s doing whatever bad he deems necessary to do good.

Andrew Sullivan, who for months on end tore down the Clinton’s for their “Rovian” tactics, is now a fan of these underhanded tactics when they’re carried out by his American idol Obama, and especially when Obama bests the Clintons by doing them.

As for me: I admire Obama’s political skills—and indeed I’ve advocated for Democrats to get just as tough and ruthless as the Republicans are wont to be. But I just don’t trust him, because I don’t know one thing that he stands for and stands firm on. And I’ve been saying the same thing, like a broken record, ever since I started writing about Obama—and his “narrator.”

Why does a candidate for president of the United States need a “narrator” unless he is spinning tales? Some months ago, I wrote:

[The novelist Richard] Russo gets at the issue: the media’s storytelling reduces everything and everyone to a binary choice—Spitzer is either All Evil or All Saint, take your pick.

A similar dynamic is at play in the Reverend Wright scandal. Obama’s problem is that there isn’t a simple story line that can explain his 20-year affiliation with Wright and allow Obama at the same time to hold on to his own pacific, post-racial Magic Negro Healer image.

In order to keep believing that Obama is the Magic Negro, you’ve got to write off Wright as an inconvenient uncle. If you can’t bring yourself to believe that the bile-spewer is a harmless old fool, then you are left doubting the sincerity of the Magic Negro. He begins to look like just another cynical politician who makes alliances that will advance his career.

Either way, Obama loses (and we voters lose our illusions). And the blame can be laid directly at the feet of his “narrator,” David Axelrod, who manufactured a PRopagandaTM image of Saint Barack Obama that no human being can live up to and thus put him inside a box from which he cannot escape.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask a presidential candidate who is an unknown quantity to the American people (because he has no track record) to be clear about what, specifically, he stands for. Do you?