I think it's telling that Hillary essentially hired staff to write her books, and they're still nigh-unreadable dreck. In 50 years, no one will read either of Hillary's books for any purpose other than researching a dissertation. Obama wrote both of his books himself -- for real! -- and they're both quite good reads. His early memoir, if not "Audacity of Hope," stands a good chance of being read for pleasure by some readers in 50 years.

We shouldn't necessarily choose presidents on the basis of writing ability. I mean, in terms of simple craft, Warren Harding was a decent scribe. But the fact is that most of our better presidents have been good writers, for the simple fact that there is some correlation between thinking well and writing well. Washington wrote prolifically, and he left behind the best personal letters of his era. Or possibly second-best; Abigail Adams was a truly superior letter-writer. Jackson actually shaped public opinion as much with his public writing as with any other aspect of his public persona. Lincoln could have made a living as a writer. FDR is the biggest exception; he was a mediocre writer despite being a brilliant speaker. And Eisenhower turned out to be a solid writer as well. His "Crusade in Europe" stands beside Grant's "Personal Memoirs" as the only presidential memoirs worth reading for the prose. Obama's "Dreams from My Father" would join that small list were he to become president.

Complementary, not complimentary!

Is correct spelling really too much to ask?

Quoth Rhubarbs:

"...for the simple fact that there is some correlation between thinking well and writing well."

Would you mind telling my students that?

I would beg to differ on the pitfall for authentic.

The way that it appears to me, if you are narcissistic or evolve there based on supposed authenticity, then your authenticity ends. And it would be obvious to anyone who had not been hypnotized by your apparent authenticity to begin with. Of course, if you were primarily  narcissistic, any authenticity would have simply been part of the game for you. I can not see the implication of image projection in true authenticity. In fact for me, authentic would imply the very absence of such a motivation. After all, a contrived appearance, over time will become frayed unless of course, you have so convinced yourself that the contrived view that you project of yourself is your true self. Then it has a much greater durability and I have met one or two individuals in my time who have demonstrated that trait. They were the penultimate sales men.

So, perhaps for me, it all comes down to a matter of attention or awareness of the observer.

The definition of sincerity here on my apple is: Fee from pretense or deceit.

So the word is defined essentially by a negation. The implication is that an expression of sincerity is an expression that implies consideration of it's opposite. Essentially, for me, I have never encountered any individual who appeared sincere that did not leave the impression of insincerity with me. For me, the expression of sincerity is in itself inauthentic.

The analysis proposed in the synopsis above begs the question: Have we as a society developed such a  jaundiced of ourselves that we are unable to imaging anyone acting out of true authenticity?

As you might guess, I view Obama as genuinely authentic. I understand that he is human and if you read Dreams you get a glimpse into that humanity. I do however see and feel a continuity of the humanity and authenticity that came across in the book in every instance in which i see him speak publicly. Whether it be a stump speech read off a teleprompter or a debate or a press conference interview or a clip of him speaking with reporters in the back of the bus.

Have I been hypnotized? Well, I spent more than twenty years in the financial services industry where every hour of every day was filled with people attempting to appear to me something greater than what they actually were. It's a pretty commonplace occurrence every where we turn in this society. I met hundreds of people and worked for dozens. I saw many come and go as the sheen wore off in a vicious business that is filled with and fueled by pure greed.

I think that i have a certain edge based on that experience and this is how it falls out for me.

The question that the review raises for me is: is Mr. Obama attempting to be authentic or is he actually  authentic?

The answer to this will only become clear to us all over time. For the Clintons, I think that the answer is already obvious.

"...authenticity is being what you are"

Catch that tautology!

It recalls that familiar cornball...

"To be is to do" -- Kant.

"To do is to be" -- Nietzsche

Do-be-do-be-do" -- Sinatra

Actually, it's a distinction without a difference.  Authenticity is existentialist.  Sincerity is Japanese.  Yukio Mishima was a big Kierkegaard fan.  The existentialists say the willingness to give your life for your "passionate concern" makees you authentic.  The Japanese believe the willingness to give your life for your "passionate concern" makes you sincere.  Thus, sepuku; thus, the kamakaze.

Thus, today's suicide bomber.

Parsing these words in order to score a point against Hillary is petty and banal.

The Japanese don't call it 'Sincerity' - this is because that is an English word. I don't even understand how you can refer between 'authenticity' and 'sincere' (as the Japanese use it)-- this is senseless.

Both can have the (single!) criterion you mention and yet be different, if you can imagine.