Letters to the Editor
-
well, let's see the rest, then, Tina...
TINA gives us the ending section of Brooks' column, and wants to know why this was omitted in the War Room quotation. But I wonder why Tina as well as Alex leaves out the MIDDLE. Maybe because it hits uncomfortably close to home for a few of Salon's more intense Obama troops? It goes like this...
"Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.
They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?
As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:
Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?
Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?
If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.
And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?
These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?
How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?
The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?
The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous."
Of course it's unfair in a lot of ways. But so are Brooks' many attacks on Senator Clinton, which mirror those made here by so-called Democrats. The oddest thing about this column is how rare and unusual it is to find such criticism of The Chosen One, even by Republicans.
-
same old arrogant, demoralizing, blowhard insider crap
"...but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?"
I dunno. Why are you so condescending? Why do smokers smoke and fat people overeat, and why does half the country still not vote? Maybe because they need a reason to change bad habits. Maybe they've been inspired to apathy for too damn long by cynical blowhards like David Brooks. Maybe because Mr. Brooks is just the latest self-important insider to be perplexed by sincerity and hope in politics and to lash out against the dying of the black art known as U.S. politics.
It's one thing to disagree with Obama and to criticize him for his stances or his abilities, it's another thing entirely to mock the millions of American citizens and voters who reject fear and cynicism when they choose hope and choose to support him. Denigrate your fellow citizens all you like, but you have already lost Mr. Brooks, and no matter what happens to Obama's campaign ultimately, he (and yes, we) have already succeeded. Obama has already changed America by elevating our politics and inspiring people to have higher standards, even in what they expect of themselves. He appeals to our best instincts instead of our worst, smallest, ugliest and most petty ones, and once people detox and get a taste of political sobriety, they don't ever want to go back on the kind of junk you're pushing. I know I don't.
Good riddance to you and your ilk, Mr. Brooks. You've got nothing to add, only subtract.