I liked David Brooks' column today, but why wouldn't I since it bore some resemblance to something one might, in some way, call a quasi-endorsement of Obama:
But other candidates are propelled by what some psychologists call self-efficacy, the placid assumption that they can handle whatever the future throws at them. Candidates in this mold, most heroically F.D.R. and Ronald Reagan, are driven upward by a desire to realize some capacity in their nature. They rise with an unshakable serenity that is inexplicable to their critics and infuriating to their foes...
... He doesn't have F.D.R.'s joyful nature or Reagan's happy outlook, but he is analytical. That's why this William Ayers business doesn't stick. He may be liberal, but he is never wild. His family is bourgeois. His instinct is to flee the revolutionary gesture in favor of the six-point plan.
This was not evident back in the "fierce urgency of now" days, but it is now. And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
To be sure, there are a couple of "to be sure" grafs, just so they don't really throw him out of the club for good. But it's lot more positive than anything he's written about McCain lately.
On the general subject of candidates' personality types, I read something recently that reminded me of a piece I wrote for the LATimes way back in December 2006 called "Obama, the anti-Bush." I argued that it was the right time for Obama to run because his was an opposite personality type to Bush's, and that recent history showed that after four or eight years of a president with X personality traits, voters often turn to a guy who was the opposite:
If my theory is correct, then 2008, coming directly off of Bush's tenure, will be exactly the right time for Obama to run. His themes and his personality — his agreeable nature and penchant for self-contemplation, so utterly unlike the incumbent's petulant, unreflective swagger — will be uniquely in demand in 2008 in a way they just might not be in 2012 or 2016.
If I say so meself -- not bad for December 2006, eh?
