There is an old Taoist tale about two kings, one from the east and one from the west. Together they would travel to the kingdom in between, the land of No Form, where they would rest and relax and contemplate their alliance. It was a sort of Camp David, if you will, where No Form treated them quite well. But No-Form had an upcoming election, and lacking a solid agenda, was accused of emptiness. Well, the two kings thought they could help. So they punched a hole here and a hole there and carved out an agenda. Then No Form was deflated and expired.

Sometimes we need a little space in our politics. Sharply defined parties lack members. Sharply defined agendas lack support. For when we draw our boundaries too tight, we invite others to do the same. Then politics becomes a fight. And when there are several parties to a fight, rarely does anybody come out winning. Such is the way of partisan politics.

So, when I hear people speak of the emptiness of Obama, I tend to think they’re missing far more than he is. It would be a grave error to contend that Obama moves people merely because of his poetic prose. After all, every serious presidential candidate has access to some of the best speech writers in the world. But few give great speeches.

To stick with the eastern theme, Confucius noted the problem is with the face. We sense the discord between words and deeds. We see it in the body language, tone of voice, and incongruous smiles. Only an actor can give a good speech if they don’t believe what they are saying. The other side can always tell when our candidate is full of it.

If you’ve given many speeches, you probably know it’s difficult to give a great one if the audience isn’t ready to hear what you have to say. When the audience doesn’t respond to your jokes, when they aren’t moved by your rhetoric, it’s wise to tone it down. It is only when the audience trusts us, believes in what we are saying, and is ready to become inspired, that they will fully let their guard down. Obama gives great speeches, because we give permission.

Most audience members have a set of concerns they bring to any talk. It’s not until these concerns are answered that they will let themselves be moved. This is a rational process. Black liberals may need to hear that Obama understands and can identify with the historical experience of racism in the United States. Conservatives may need to hear he understands why they believe differently than him. “Latté liberals” may want to hear he can think globally and work diplomatically. Moderate Republicans may want to hear he is pragmatic and able to compromise.

It is not mere rhetorical brilliance which allows Obama to integrate these seemingly contradictory positions. Nor is it merely a subtle and sophisticated intelligence, though he posses both of these in ample degrees. Rather, it is his social genius and apparent level of personal development which are most striking. As the conservative columnist, David Brooks, has noted regarding his personal encounters with Obama, the man is able to see deeply into what is really going on with people, often far more so than those people themselves.

Most of America’s greatest President’s - whether Lincoln or FDR, Kennedy or Reagan - have been great rhetoricians. If there is a sense that Obama could become one of them, perhaps it is because he shares numerous characteristics in common with so many of them - his inexperience, his open agenda, his ability to unify, and his charisma. Few candidates have shared as much in common as Obama does with so many Presidents consistently ranked in surveys as our best.

Every generation in American politics, that rare gem appears, an electable Presidential candidate who inspires us to bridge our divides and aspire to great deeds. But we want to know whether they can function within the divisive and corrupt system so many of us hope they will change. So the media, other candidates, and the electorate poke holes in them with a barrage of ruthless accusations.

It doesn’t matter whether they are true. We want to know whether the gem is solid. So we hammer it and carve at it and bury it in mud. And all too often, in the end, the gem is shattered or drowned in filth and the candidate expires.

But perhaps it is true Obama is no jewel. How can we distinguish greatness in a speaker from mere flare? And is it true that our greatest Presidents have been our greatest public speakers or do we make their speeches great because we admire their presidencies? Finally, is it possible for us to vet our candidates without destroying them, and if so, how can we do this?