In the interest of looking at situations from all possible sides, I just finished reading The Audacity Of Hope by Barack Hussein Obama. Newsweek calls Obama "one of the best writers to enter modern politics." After reading his book, I can't say that I agree. I find David Horowitz to be a far more compelling writer, and more accurate in his information. Even Ann Coulter does a better job of backing up opinion with fact.

As far as writing style is concerned, Obama has a tendency to convey a simple observation with many more words than is actually needed. This book could have been half the length and still conveyed all the information that is included. His writing style, for the most part, is easy to read, but is verbose and rambling. He certainly enjoys using words, but he certainly could make better use of them.

From a technical standpoint, the writing is poor. There is no editor listed for the publication, and that is one of its faults. Obama plays fast and loose with the rules of the English language, and in a technical sense, the writing is more like Stephen King than Henry James. An actual editor may have forced a correction to such clumsy writing as the following, found on page 78:

"The scope of presidential power during wartime. The ethics surrounding end-of-life decisions."

These statements aren't sentences. It is ironic that in his next sentence after these statements, Obama uses a semi-colon; he could have used a couple of them here. Granted, he is trying to write to his audience and attempting to use a dramatic, prose-like style, but any decent editor could have cleaned up his use of language while maintaining his style. There are many examples like these throughout the book, so I cannot consider him a "good" writer. You would think a former editor of the Harvard Law Review would have done a better job editing himself.

Another stylistic issue that is not necessarily bad use of English, but just gets annoying, is his habit of ending nearly every chapter with a one sentence paragraph that has a highly dramatic tone. Chapter One ends with the following paragraph:

"They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them."

Chapter Two ends with:

"To do otherwise would be to relinquish our best selves."

Out of a total of 9 chapters in the book, 7 end with a one sentence paragraph. At least most of the one sentence paragraphs are complete sentences.

As far as the content is concerned, some of it may seem compelling, but it fails to persuade. There is a lot of history in the book, but it is history framed as Obama sees it, not necessarily how it happened. There are no sources or references listed for any of the information he cites, so to cover so much history and state it as fact is problematic in itself. In addition, Obama has a tendency to frame issues as fact that are opinion or seen from a decidedly "liberal" viewpoint. For example, on page 148:

"...special interest appropriations... are up 64 percent since Bush took office. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers (and the public) have resisted drastic cuts in vital investments..."

This could have been a statement one might take seriously, and a point to be considered, except for the words he chose to insert in parenthesis, "and the public..." How can he make such a statement as this? We are all part of the public, and I don't recall being asked about this. Is there some poll he can cite for this bit of information? We don't know, because he doesn't provide any references. On the surface, this is particularly lazy writing; if he is going to make such a statement, he needs to cite a source, or somehow back up this statement. On a deeper level, this is part of a pattern throughout the book; Obama continually states seemingly innocuous facts, then adds a liberal bias by the use of an unsubstantiated claim in the form of an off-hand comment, such as seen here. Most political writers could never get away with this, but Obama is given a pass.

The book also contains at least one outright lie. On page 188, in regards to the federal budget defict, Obama states:

"...the bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts... in other words, we ran up the national credit card so that the biggest
beneficiaries of the global economy could get an even bigger share of the take."

There is no source listed for this allegation, and the facts contradict what he states as a truth. According to freerepublic.com, revenues from income taxes increased from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003, when the tax cuts were enacted, to 8.0 percent in 2006, the most recent date for which figures are available. This includes a 1.5 percent growth in corporate income taxes to the highest level since 1978. So, with no sources cited, Obama puts forward a liberal talking point as fact which cannot be considered as anything but an outright lie. This one issue, coupled with the lack of references for any of the information presented, damages the credibility of the entire book.

The overall message of the book seems to be that he loves his country and will honorably serve its interests, as he sees them. After reading this book, I believe him; in that sense, the book is successful. Where the book fails him is how it depicts him as a man who is more concerned with making sure he is on the correct side of every issue, rather than a man who has his own strong convictions. He spends page after page carefully nuancing his position on every issue so as to be the most politically correct he can be. Where he finds fault with himelf, it is in the most mundane of daily habits; when it comes to the bigger issues, he is careful to position himself exactly where he believes his base wants him to be. We all probably have a tendency to self-idealize, but after a few hundred pages of such behavior, it becomes shallow and begins to seem self-serving.

The book actually shows him to be a better U.S. Senator than the President. A Senator is like a Human Resources Director; the President is like a CEO. Actually, the President is literally the CEO of our country, as he is the chief officer of the Executive Branch. It is a Senator's job to listen to and to represent his or her constituents, to forge bipartisan coalitions, and to consider careful compromises to enact legislation. Judging Obama from this book, he does seem to have a good abilty to listen and consider opinions from all sides and to form a conclusion based on a majority view of influences. The President, on the other hand, should weigh these influences, but should make decisions based on what is the best course of action to successfully move this country forward, regardless if his consitutents may feel it is right at the time. Many times, the president may have to make extremely unpopular decisions because it is the best for the country, even when a majority of his constituents may not understand the issue. History is full of such examples, from decisions to go to war, raise taxes, etc. Obama shows little, if no ability to detach himself from the wants of his constituents to concentrate on their needs. He shows himself to be easily swayed by public opinion, rather than resolute in his convictions. Throughout his book he recounts episodes of listening to constituents and basing his actions on popular opinion, and finding the middle ground on a position rather than acting on a strong conviction. That sounds like a good Senator to me, but not necessarily a good President.

The response to the book, for the most part, has been positive. The media seems to have ignored most, if not all, of the elements of the book I have criticized. The back cover contains excerpts from glowing reviews by such media outlets as The New York Times, Newsweek, and Chicago Tribune, all of which are papers of record. And these reviews have come in despite the complete lack of sources for historical facts in the book, and the repeated use of unsubstantiated innuendo within its pages. Conversely, when conservative writers such as Ann Coulter or David Howowitz publish a well-researched book, citing numerous references and carefully differentiating fact from opinion, their book is held to a microscope and challenged on virtually every point, no matter how well researched or referenced, or the book is ignored altogether or dismissed as a right-wing diatribe that is more fantasy then fact.

Why is there such a double standard? Why is Obama allowed to present a book that is poorly written, with no references, and exhibits a bias to liberal viewpoints, and not be challenged, while a conservative author is held to much higher standards? I believe it is because the liberal base is more concerned with feeling than fact, and if they agree with a viewpoint, the actual truth is not important. For them, it seems to be more important to be morally right than factually correct. Obama is able to paint a portrait of himself that makes his readers feel good about themselves and their country. Because his viewpoint, his positions and his presentation of history are politically correct, there is no need to cite actual facts or sources.

For most liberals, if something feels like the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. If it feels wrong, then they will hold it to a much higher standard, and do everything they can to disprove it, even if facts say otherwise. A conservative can carefully document every fact, reference or source, and the liberal will still question and challenge, and if they can't disprove it, they will move beyond the actual issue and try to discredit the author. Hence, David Horowitz and Ann Coulter are dismissed as right-wing idealogues; there is no reason to discuss the validity of their well-referenced publications, because they themselves are not worthy of discussion.

Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, is the liberals' rock star. He preaches to his fan base and they unswervingly accept his every utterance as if it were fact etched in stone. They need not question any of his proclamations because what he says just feels right.

In addition, liberals elevate the perception of Obama's intelligence, because to be right is to be more intelligent. Liberals invariably feel they are more intelligent than conservatives, and they thinly disguise the belief of their superior intelligence. Obama is routinely discussed as being the most intelligent presidential candidate in the field. This, despite the fact that he writes poorly and much of the time speaks without really saying anything.

There is a famous quote, attributed to various writers such as Mark Twain and Winston Churchill, that goes something like this: "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter; I didn't have time to write you a short one." Obama, for all his perceived intelligence, cannot write a short letter. He must ramble on, page after page, trying to actually say something, but he usually never really does. Other than the fact that Barack Obama loves his country, The Audacity of Hope, like Barack Hussein Obama himself, is devoid of any real substance and one is left with the feeling of reading a long book that makes you feel good about yourself and your country, but otherwise didn't say much.