David Brooks piece "Two Obamas"

One of the most emailed and most blogged piece at the New York Times recently has been David Brooks recent "Two Obamas." It didn't make me feel better about Barack Obama but it did make me feel as if some my impressions of Obama were not far off. Especially if you read the last two paragraphs:

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

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.

Brooks has previously stated Obama was "...all carrot, no stick. He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague."

Not that it matters now, but that's one of the main reasons I could not get on the "O-Train" as some call it. I saw too many instances where depending on the audience he'd say something that I knew wasn't accurate...What will be interesting is will the media start calling him out more and will it really matter, since as we saw with FISA, Obama knows it is now between him and McCain...