God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

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."

The charges:

1. Obama voted present- He voted present about 2% of the time. This fantasy that you get away with something by voting present is nonsense. Given the heat he's taken for it, the really politically expedient thing to do would've been just to vote. You'll notice nobody has made an issue of any of the 3800+ votes that he did vote yes or no. Would you rather have someone who voted present 2% or voted incorrectly 2% (or much more) of the time? Most of the votes were probably political but as he claims, politics isn't bean bag, so why should Obama have voted for/against bills that were being used as wedge issues just to play into the opposition's game? Also, on other bills, he clearly explained that he voted present because there was a specific issue with part of the bill that he wanted rectified before approving it. This is a hell of a lot better than someone who votes for things despite problematic loopholes.

2. Jeremiah Wright- I know everyone thinks this is political expediency but I don't think it was. Obama's reaction was perfectly understandable given the slow increase in Wright's ability to be tolerated. First he was just controversial so Obama said okay not a good idea to speak at my campaign kickoff. Perfectly reasonable. Then his more outrageous statements came out and Obama said he denounces those statements but Wright has done a lot of good and he's not going to allow a few statements to wipe out 20 years of good things Wright has done. Perfectly reasonable. Then came April where Wright himself went in front of the national media and behaved like a fool and decided that he wanted to characterize himself as a nutcase so Obama said that if this guy wants to allow himself to be portrayed this way, then he longer feels the need to defend him and is cutting him off. Perfectly reasonable. Was it politically expedient? Yes, but real political expediency would have been to cut this guy off from the start and remove every figure from his life that could ever ever be construed as anything but bland All-American apple pie. I don't see anything wrong with what he did given that the "facts on the ground" continued to change so his position rationally evolved.

3. "Workhorse senator"- Workhorse in what way? Congress in its present form is a joke. People who get things passed are people with seniority. Hillary Clinton apparently worked extremely hard during her 1st term in the Senate and what accomplishments does she have to her name? Nothing but a bad vote on Iraq. Congress doesn't reward hard work and that's exactly why Obama needs to be President so he doesn't have to wait til he's 75 to pass any major legislation.

4. Town halls- Oh yes, what an olive branch John McCain offered with those town halls. That was a purely selfish offer. McCain knows full well that town halls are his best forum and he's awful on the teleprompter and can't draw large crowds. By forcing Obama onto his turf, he could bog down Obama in preparation for town halls and use his best format in an attempt to tamp down Obama's huge crowds and enthusiasm. It was nothing but a political ploy and David Brooks acts like McCain was doing out of respect for the political process. I guess Brooks also believes John McCain is seriously hurt that Obama didn't take public financing and it has nothing to do with the huge money advantage Obama has without it. If McCain cares so much about more debates between the two of them, why hasn't he accepted Obama's plan for 5 debates?

5. Public financing- I don't think anyone doubts that Obama didn't reject it for at least partially selfish reasons but McCain is certainly not innocent in this the way he's been gaming the system and frankly it's stupid to insist that Obama kneecap himself in the midst of the election. That's why we're so insistent on following the Constitution, because it's a lot easier to work under pre-established rules than make up new ones on the fly when people are forced to pick between self-interest and principle. For McCain to call this a big trust issue is nonsense. First of all, he would do it in a heartbeat if the situation were reversed and more importantly, Obama isn't hurting real people by making this reversal. McCain flip-flopping on a long term presence in Iraq is 10,000 times more important than Obama not taking public financing but which one are we talking about? I support public financing but it's setting the ethics threshold a little too high to expect Obama to voluntarily forfeit his fundraising advantage in the middle of a very important election. Given that Obama has made ethics a major part of his record, I don't think this is any indication of the same thing happening when he's president. In fact, there is a good chance he'll bring about reform so future candidates won't be put in this ethical limbo.