Here is Maureen Dowd in today's NY Times: "[Obama] took two of the boldest risks in history - jumping into the presidential race in the first place and giving the kill order on Bin Laden on sketchy intelligence."

Let me see.  Might any other "risks in history" be categorized as "bolder"?  Consider for a moment,

• D-Day June 6, 1944 when General Dwight D. Eisenhower had to quickly decide despite inclement weather forecasts whether to proceed with l anding 160,000 allied troops on the hostile Normandy coast.
• Washington's decision to cross the Delaware
• Grant's decision to order the Union Army to cross the Mississippi River to lay siege to Vicksburg.
• Caesar decision to cross the Rubicon with his legions knowing he needed to either achieve victory or face certain death; "the die is cast".
• The Wright Brothers' decision to risk life and limb at Kitty Hawk.
• Nathan Hale's decision to spy on the British.

These "risks in history" spring to mind with hardly any cognitive effort.  Surely there are thousand of other examples in history of "bolder" decisions that trump Dowd's "boldest". 

Dowd's  hyperbole in praise of Obama is therefor truly ludicrous.  In no way was Obama personally or professionally at risk due to these two "decisions".  First, if he had campaigned for President and lost, his stature in the Democratic Party surely would have increased anyway; he is a young man and could easily have tried again in the next election. Second, if he had decided NOT to give the kill order on Bin Laden, the political risk would have been far greater -- for this information would have inevitably leaked out, and he would have faced charges of having let Bin Laden escape.

The fact that liberals believe Dowd's pabulum is truly absurd and underscores the failings of public education -- especially as displayed by the editors of the NY Times.