Gibson reminded Obama that he pledged as president to launch a military strike in western Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence" that bin Laden was there-- whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Obama implied he would take this action with or without approval from the United Nations Security Council, meaning he would act "unilaterally" to violate the sovereignty of a U.N. member state. He would do this not in response to an attack against the United States, he suggested, but to prevent another anticipated attack, meaning he would act "pre-emptively." In other words, he would act pre-emptively and unilaterally if the security of the United States depended on swift military action.

GIBSON: Do you stand by that?

Obama's lips begin to move, slowly.

OBAMA: I do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan…What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.

GIBSON: I'm going to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. (Italics added)

There they go again! The politics of fear!

OBAMA: No, this is not the same thing…this is not speculation.

Hence the Obama antidote to the politics of fear: Be certain, very certain, about the intentions of the bad guys before you apply the Bush doctrine to international threats to U.S. security. And be certain, very certain, never to call your doctrine pre-emption or imply you might approve unilateral action or that you suspect the Patriot Act might have prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The problem with Barack Obama is not his personal story or his themes of hopefulness and change. It is heartening that Obama, an African-American, could generate such enthusiasm among voters of all ages and races, as his electrifying victory in the Iowa caucus suggested. For the cause of race relations in America, that is a very good thing.

But there are other causes facing Americans at this political moment. There are gathering storms that can't be wished away because they're unpleasant to think about, as ABC's Charlie Gibson had the temerity to suggest. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of genocidal jihadists, rebuilding the failed states of Afghanistan and Iraq, prodding democratic reform in the Arab world-- these are not causes to be undertaken by those armed only with hope. Wisdom is needed as well: the ability to make difficult strategic and moral decisions, and to get them right when it really matters. Liberals like to imagine that wisdom emerges spontaneously, without effort or depth of character. No need for the crucible of experiences in leadership that produce humility, offer perspective, and sharpen judgment. Barack Obama not only lacks these experiences, but wears their absence as a badge of honor.

This character deficit may not, at the end of the day, trouble many voters. It hardly registers among our media elites-- who remain obsessed with superficialities, in awe of Obama's political momentum, and sympathetic to his appeal. The day after the Bush administration released its latest intelligence report, "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," The New York Times followed its predictable script. Its lead editorial, "The Politics of Fear," accused the White House of stoking anxiety for raw political gain by highlighting the terrorist activities of al Qaeda in Pakistan and beyond. That was back in July. Five months later Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto was murdered in broad daylight by the forces of extremism.

Well, so much for the politics of fear. Senator Obama's first response to Bhutto's assassination was to castigate the Bush White House for continuing its efforts to stabilize Iraq-- and, by golly, he's going to change that. His media cheerleaders don't seem to mind. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News noted that Obama grew up in Hawaii and spent a lot of time surfing. "What he's got to do," he gushed, "is just ride this wave of change." NBC's David Gregory captured the effervescent mood: "At the end of the day, Barack Obama is going to make people feel something."

If that's all we really expect of our leaders-- emoting but not thinking, riding the change wave regardless of the reefs and the undertow-- then perhaps the greatest threat to the United States is already among us.

-- Joe Loconte is a senior fellow at Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.