First, a little context. As noted in the article, it is "opinion" and an excerpt from the author's book, The Case Against Barack Obama. From that alone, we know that the author is not bound by the rules of journalism. We also know that the article will certainly not be a balanced look at the candidate.

That being said, the author appears to have skipped over a few key facts that bear on Obama's conduct during the incident in question. First, Obama was already a State Senator, having been chosen by the former, very popular State Senator who resigned the position in order to run for the U.S. House of Representatives to complete her term in the state senate. The former State Senator thought enough of Obama to tap him to take her place.

Then the unexpected happened. The very popular former State Senator was defeated in her run for the U.S. Congress. In that she was the one who appointed Obama to complete her term when she resigned, she approached him and asked him to withdraw from the election wherein he was seeking election for a second term after his short appointed term. I guess maybe he liked the job and refused. You can decide whether it as an appropriate request by the former State Senator and whether Obama's refusal was a fair and just response. But he did refuse to withdraw.

Once the decision not to withdraw was made, then it became an "all's fair in love and war" political campaign so common in Chicago. Obama used the rules of the Chicago Election Commission--as well as the illegal petitioning by all of the other candidates--to have them disqualified and their names removed from the ballot. Obama went on to win the election uncontested and the rest is history.

The author of this opinion piece suggests that Obama isn't the do-gooder agent-of-change he claims to be. He goes to some length in presenting his interpretation and examples of why that is true. Again, given the side of the spectrum the author is coming from, no one should be surprised.

Is Barack Obama a tough politician and effective campaigner? That seems undeniable. Did the anecdotal criticisms in the last one-third of the article suggest that Obama did anything illegal or immoral? Even the very critical op-ed author didn't suggest that.

So what do we have? Obama is apparently an very tough, effective politician who knows that he can only serve as an agent of change if he wins elected office and deals from a position of strength. It seems to me that's no different from any of the more revered elected leaders that have served the U.S. so well over recent decades. Was John Kennedy similarly tough? Ronald Reagan? How about George W. Bush? Remember, the strategies he used only four years ago to win Florida and the Presidency?

I think all we have in this article is a shrill criticism of a candidate for playing the political game the way it's always been played. Where the author errs, in my opinion, is to take his criticism to the next step, predicting that Obama won't act as he claims he will to achieve political cooperation, a less self-serving attitude by elected officials and change for the better. I don't think his examples support those allegations.