Rocco Landesman, the NEA chairman, has stated that Barack Obama is "the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar." That doesn't mean he is a good writer.

Take, for example, his puffed up tome "The Audacity of Hope." I found the book to be poorly written. On page 78, there are sentences that have no verb. There are no references for any of the points he cites. The book contains at least one outright lie, on page 188, where he directly blames the Bush tax cuts for the rising deficit even though it is widely documented that federal tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. He frequently puts forward his opinions as if they are fact. No conservative politician could get away with writing a book with no cited references, no editor, and such poor grammar.

I posted the above paragraph on a Buzzillions review site for the book last year. One comment has been generated so far, stating that "A sentence at the top of the first Index page states: "Sources for the statistics in this book can be found at www.audacityofhope.com."" Well, I went there to look for the references and found none. Am I missing something?

That aside, Barack Obama is decidedly not a good writer. Compelling content (and that is debatable here) does not a good writer make. He's a good BS artist, who will say anything as long as it furthers his cause, but not a good writer. Good writing must include correct grammar, and it must site sources and back up arguments with references. Anyone who has written a college term paper knows that.

But the statement by Landesman does not say Obama is a good writer; it says he is a powerful writer. I suppose when you have the full force and weight of the most powerful office in the world behind you, that statement could be true. But let's not confuse that with good writing.