At least, David Brooks’ column in today’s New York Times sure reads like an Obama endorsement. As does Fareed Zakaria’s essay in the current issue of that other weekly newsmagazine. Neither, of course, actually declares his support for Obama’s candidacy. To do so would be surprising from Brooks in particular, since he is, after all, the official conservative of the Times’ Op Ed page. But in both cases, the writer takes up the Obama-lacks-experience question and argues that while Obama’s resume may be thin, his less tangible qualities trump Clinton’s actual experience. They may be right. They both assemble some plausible, even persuasive logic to make their case. But they may also be dressing up their emotional preference for Obama in the camouflage of intellectual argument. What do you think?