I don’t read a lot of books.  When I do read, I am rather equal in distribution of fiction and non-fiction material.  Another tendency I have is to stay away from really thick books.  If you can’t say what you want to say in like 450 pages or less, you probably don’t really have anything to say at all.  I’ve found that overly wordy works seem not to be for purpose but for pleasure.  As it is, I tend not to be interested in pleaure-reading and unless the work makes a statement of some kind, I’m not likely to enjoy or even finish it.  Don’t know why, it’s just the way I am.

Sure, great works of literature are not always pointed.  For me, however, I read with the intention to learn something.  What will I learn?  Not sure.  I may want to learn about existentialism, or Taoism.  I may want to know about bodybuilding or mixed martial arts.  Sometimes I read about science and technology.  My curiosity often takes me in radically different directions.  But always I want to know the unique perspective of the author.  Whether it’s explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly given, I am interested in that personal point of view that we all have.

I never intended to read The Audacity of Hope.  I just didn’t care.  It is not a natural desire for me to “get to know” a politician.  Up until now, it has been my notion to ignore the personal quirks and emotional tooling associated with “getting to know” one.  Why?  For one, how can you really know someone unless you interact with them on a very personal level over a certain cumulation of time?  For two, isn’t it more important how they tend to vote on certain pieces of key legislation and what ventures they tend to support?  I would agree mostly in the affirmative.

Yet, I have noticed that my method hasn’t necessarily made me “successful” in choosing the types of candidates who in turn push the government in the direction that I think it should go.  That’s why I decided to scrap my original line of thinking and throw in with the biographies and personalities of the candidates.  That’s why I read The Audacity of Hope.  Well, okay, that’s a lie.  It was after reading the book that I decided that there might be something to “getting to know” a candidate.

The real reason I read Barack Obama’s second book was because my wife was reading it.  Every once in a while she would read out an excerpt or two.  One sentence turned into a paragraph, a paragraph into a page, and a page into the whole book.  Yes, my wife read the entire book to me out loud.  Which is way better than an audio book, I might add.  It’s like having your very own personal voice actor follow you around the house reminding you that it’s your turn to fold the laundry.  It’s awesome.  And my wife is a very good reader and has a very nice voice.  So, it worked out for me.

My initial impression is that Obama’s a fairly good writer.  The words flow well and the voice is well established and not at all cumbersome or trying.  For a second time author, this is no small task.  Sure, it is actually his own voice, but most authors do a lot of hiding, if you will, behind the text.  Obama does not.  Instead, there is an apparent unabashed honesty to the content of the book that is quite striking.  I did not at all expect it.  What I expected was basic political rhetoric and the spouting of Democratic Party dogma.  It isn’t there.

Yes, there are obvious policy positions taken but they are explained in a very reasonable and rational manner.  In short, I found that the book is very much in line with the public persona that is Barack Obama.  Not how others see him.  Not how the legions of supporters portray and exaggerate his “greatness.”  And not how his opponents would regard him either; with horns and a trident.  But rather, the book is his public persona as he actually gives it.  When he opens his mouth on stage and speaks into the microphone, you hear the same voice that’s in this book.  That’s refreshing.

There are some consistencies here, in the 2006 text, with the Barack Obama all this long presidential campaign later.  It’s not necessarily in the issues.  Some have been altered or amended.  But it’s in the approach to politics that that will be his legacy.  The cool and reasoned approach.  The way in which all of the information is gathered and considered and played with and put into both a greater and smaller context all that the same time.  It’s how his approach to politics is ultimately practical and unforgivingly compromising and inclusive that’s appealing.

Pragmatism, compromise, and honesty are the most pervasive themes in the book.  Information will change.  The needs of the country, of the individual and of the world will change and evolve.  However, the idea of progress and the opinion that government is a tool to this end is really the whole point.  It is, really, audacious to have this hope that the government is not here to maintain the status quo, but to change it.  Government is not here to merely keep us in bounds, but to keep us in play.  Government should actively ensure the opportunities are present for us to improve our station in life.  I finally understood what he meant by “hope” and “change.”  And I suddenly was saddened that most of his supporters even don’t really understand this.  Really, it’s too bad.

The book is not overly optimistic either.  It’s his closet cynicism and self-doubt that effectively endear him to me.  There is a real awareness present in the mind of Barack Obama that just doesn’t seem present to me in a lot of people, least of all politicians.  The Audacity of Hope is not the sappy, Oprah-friendly tripe I anticipated.  It is truly authentic.

What the book has done for me is solidify my expectation that Obama will not be the sort of unreasonable, uncompromising communist that the right-leaning media has made him out to be.  In fact, it seems that his interest in compromise and accomodation for change will more likely piss off members of his own party more than the other.  Time will tell.  The book was worth my time, and I think that it’ll be worth yours too.  It has set a precedent for me to try, to best of my ability, to inform myself on major party national candidates in the future.  I regret that I haven’t read a John McCain book now, but maybe I will.  I hope I come to the same conclusions on him as I did Obama.  We’ll see.