Ever since I started this blog I have written about decisions made by public officials as if I was in their position with the information that they had. I always thought that was the way to do it that was fairest to them. If I was going to criticize I should have as much of the information as they did--as much as a private person can get.

I did not often disagree with decisions that President Obama made. When I did it was at the margins, like he would lean 51% in this direction and I would maybe lean 51% in that (JCPOA is Exhibit 1). Not once with Obama did I think, "Where did that come from?" I felt that I had enough of the information that he had; moreso I knew how Obama's brain worked. He was sooo much like the best lawyers and judges I worked with that I felt I knew Obama personally. He was a lawyer, I was a lawyer; we were of the same generation, close to  the same age, both carried the yellow flag. Of course I didn't know him personally, but that was the depth of the mind meld. I could always understand why he decided what he decided. 

But with a sound process--one in which I was able to empty out my ego and really listen, following the facts and logic as best I could and considering them alongside my goals and my principles--I realized I could make tough decisions and still sleep easy at night, knowing at a minimum that no one in my position, given the same information, could have made the decision any better. A Promised Land (447)