In comparing the Left and Right views of Barack Obama as always I am amazed at the Liberal tendency to twist reality to serve their purposes, while the Conservative perspective is presented in an analytical and logical fashion which arrives at a reasonable conclusion.  Yes, I am not exactly an objective observer, but by contrasting two articles I think this point will be amply demonstrated.

Rosa Brooks of the LA Times has written a fawning paean which is almost Messianic in its emotion, and which seems to come to the conclusion that for him NOT to be President is absurd. If you read her reasoning however you might find it less than persuasive.

For Brooks, Obama's lack of campaign experience is more than made up by the fact that his growing up part Black exposed him to trying times. I am not making this up- for Parks this is logic. As for the fact  that he has only been in the Senate for two years, well that's a good thing. In her own inimitable words:

Obama bashers now complain that his two years in the U.S. Senate have been largely devoid of shock and awe. That's not a bad thing. Obama wisely hasn't tried to hog the limelight; instead, he's focused on issues that are unsexy but important.

Yes you read correctly, he just didn't want to hog the limelight, or else perhaps he would have ended the war in Iraq or at least balanced the budget. I know I much prefer the humble to the successful legislator.

When she does mention one of his "important initiatives" she discusses his work with Richard Lugar [thereby cleverly showing his bipartisanship- Rosa you are subtle!] to step up US programs to control or destroy conventional weapons, which she points out are the real problem in the world, not WMD's [perhaps her credibility is beginning to fade if she thinks a nuke and a bullet are comparable?]. Now what these programs are is left undescribed, and in fact all he has done is helped get them "stepped up" whatever that means. I may be cynical, but I am just not impressed.

Unfortunately all that she says about his other legislative efforts is that he has shown a "similar steady commitment". Again, what does that mean? We are not to find out from Ms. Brooks, who finally equates experience with charisma as being "overrated". I guess she prefers her Presidents boring and unprepared [she must have LOVED Jimmy Carter!].

Now we come to what I found the most amusing section, where she tries to get around Obama'a lack of experience by saying that is not really a problem because President's really only have to learn on the job, listen, and appoint good people, but I guess she realized that this sort of undermines Liberal criticism of Bush so she stipulates that they can't know nothing about everything,  and therefore successfully covers her tracks. Ah these Liberal pundits are slippery aren't they? Just when you thought you had them dead to rights they cleverly escape by- well, by reciting nonsense which contradicts what they were trying to prove. A clever ploy don't you think?

Finally , she mentions how impressed NH people were who attended his book signing, and ends with:

So why not Obama? Contrary to what his detractors suggest, he can offer prose as well as poetry, and this country desperately needs both.

Yes folks, what we have been really missing is a good Poet in Chief wielding iambic pentameter verse in the War on Terror. Is that even covered by the Geneva Conventions? And is Maya Angelou available for Secretary of Defense?   Thank you Rosa for enlightening us as to our true needs.

Peggy Noonan on the other hand has written an article which is much more mundane and lowkey, not espousing good poetry or the hardships of an interracial upbringing. Instead she just points out that:

What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.

In other words, he is a canvass on which his doting admirers can paint whatever picture they want because he really has accomplished little, and he says even less, preferring grand sounding generalities that make you feel good while really offering nothing of substance, sort of like a "healthy meal" from a fast food restaurant. 

He offers all things to all people [well maybe not Conservatives, but you cannot please everyone] but says really nothing about anything. His confidence is really in his destiny as opposed to his ideas or stands on issues.  He is a hope and not really a candidate, but Noonan realizes we are in a position where that may unfortunately be enough.

There you have a quick overview,and I hope you read the articles to get more depth, but my point remains: in comparing these two  one cannot help but be struck by the Liberal contortions, some of which are pretty funny, some of which are nonsensical, which are necessary to arrive at a conclusion that they seem to have arrived at regardless of facts, which really do get in the way. At the same time the Conservative viewpoint, while it may not be completely objective, remains consistent with the facts and arguments ,which are consistent with each other, that are elicited to support it. Just as a study in logic, the Conservative paper is much more effective, while the Liberal one offers comic relief. As depictions of a man who could be President of the United States,  well if that's the best the Left has to offer Hillary Clinton should be one happy lady.