Yesterday, the following exchange occurred between President Bush and someone interviewing him from the Politico:

Q Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do.

Now, Presidential historian Robert Dallek is claiming Bush’s remarks “speak to his shallowness.” And added, “That’s his idea of sacrifice, to give up golf?”

Just imagine if Bush had said the opposite: “I think it’s important for the Commander-in-Chief to be able to take a break from the seriousness of war, to unwind and get some distance from the day-to-day challenges of leading a nation in combat. And golf is how I do that.” Think of the firestorm.

The most curious aspect of this incident is how anachronistic if feels to be analyzing the sitting President’s remarks about the war. With all-campaign-all-the-time media coverage, it’s easy to forget that the President is still there. It’s also easy to forget how flimsy were the objections to his every gesture and utterance. For what it’s worth, the President’s comments demonstrate compassion and moral seriousness. Dallek’s critique (echoed, unsurprisingly, in Iran) is shallow.