With Romney's exit from the campaign today, James Taranto had some thoughts on authenticity:
Romney has been faulted for lacking "authenticity," but this is probably unfair. He is--authentically--a cool technocrat, a management consultant at heart. But a leader, as opposed to a manager, needs not just analytical skills but also intuition and emotion, not just information but also conviction. He needs to be able to consult his gut as well as the data when deciding how to proceed.Romney, in the end, failed to inspire. By contrast, Barack Obama is nothing but inspiring--so inspiring that it is becoming deeply creepy.
He goes on to cite some on the left who are contributing to, and also some who are increasingly uncomfortable with the growing cult of personality surrounding Obama...and then asks:
What are we to make of Obama himself in the midst of all this adulation? A cynic would say that he is a manipulator if not a demagogue, exploiting the gullible to further his own ambitions. A more charitable view is that his intentions are all to the good, that he has simply figured out how to tap into a genuine desire for inspiration in politics, and that if elected he will use his political powers to do good for the country.Each view seems plausible, but which is correct? Does anyone know Barack Obama well enough to say? And if not, isn't he the candidate who has a problem with authenticity?
Well, he has to talk about policy specifics eventually, (doesn't he?) and the average voter will then see what types of change they will be asked to believe in. With the exception of his version of a government run health care plan being a bit less heavy-handed than the Clinton model, his positions place him well to the left of any other candidate still in the race for the presidency. His foreign policy experience is nil, and it shows in his pronouncements and promises about Iran and the Middle East. I'm not looking for inspiration from my president. I'm looking for competence.