to see Richard Cohen isn't "missing" the "real" Obama; he just didn't know the "real" Obama.

Richard Cohen wrote an article titled Missing Barack Obama in which he seems genuinely astonished that President Obama is not the same as Candidate Obama. Cohen writes, "Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified...Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated."

Why does Cohen think Obama's moral clarity has dissipated? Why, it's because Cohen doesn't like Obama's "realpolitik" approach and is shocked that presidential candidates don't always make good on their overly lofty, unattainable campaign rhetoric!

The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances -- and having his remarks sometimes censored.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that -- what works, works?

Personally, I'm not the least bit surprised that someone who talked about negotiating with Iran without preconditions during the campaign may be too quick to cave in to avoid ruffling China's feathers. But isn't it a little weird that Cohen thought he could discern the "real" Barack Obama based on Obama's campaign speeches?

And just as strangely, Cohen seems genuinely baffled by the difference between Candidate Obama and President Obama, even as he rationally explains how campaigning is completely different than governing.

Of course, there's a difference between campaigning and governing.

There is no reality to campaigning. You want Guantanamo closed, you say you'll close it. You want to close it as president, and all of a sudden it becomes a political crisis that costs you your White House counsel, an experienced and principled man named Gregory Craig. Governing is hard.

Near the end, after he's done waxing philosophic trying to rationalize with himself over why he's unsatisfied with Obama to date, Cohen tosses in a bit of an aside. "Obama's political career has been too brief for us to know his bottom lines by votes cast in any legislative body or decisions made as an administrator. He had little record but lots of rhetoric -- much of it morally stirring and beautifully written."

Well gee Richard, Obama did have the most liberal record in the Senate in 2007, and how does a syndicated columnist who writes about politics end up being surprised that the "real" Obama wasn't the one giving soaring but relatively meaningless rhetoric that would never be implemented once in office. Every candidate does this, and every candidate has to out of political expedience!

No Richard. You're not missing Barack Obama. You simply duped yourself into believing Candidate Obama was "real," ignoring the inconvenient stuff and embracing the rhetoric, even while admitting there's "no reality to campaigning." Sure, it makes you look like an idiot, and it led you to write a column that seems devoid of any logic or structure, but look on the bright side. Millions of Americans are in that same boat with you, so there are plenty of others jumping off the bandwagon.