Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama smarter than Bill Clinton?

The NY Times' David Brooks says:

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
That comes at the end of Brooks’ column today which begins - - -

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. . . .

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding.

Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood. …

The rest of Brooks column’s here.

How long will it be before we’re talking about “Obama: Change we can’t believe in?”

Hat tip: Jack in Silver Spring


Anonymous said...

John -

Many thanks for the acknowledgment.

Jack in Silver Spring

RedMountain said...

Yes, even David Brooks can see that Obama is smarter than Bill Clinton. The sad thing is his resentment of it. I recall Brooks saying: "Witch hunts go in stages. First frenzy, when everybody damns the souls of people they don't know. Then confusion, as the first wave of contradictory facts comes in. Then deafening silence, as everybody studiously ignores the vicious slanders they uttered during the moment of maximum hysteria."

Idiot. The real question should be who is dumberest, David Brooks or the New York Times?

Which Witch Hunt have we joined now?

JWM said...

To RM,

I debated whether to publish your comment because:

1) You key it on ad hominems. Examples: "Idiot. The real question should be who is dumberest, David Brooks or the New York Times?" and "Which Witch Hunt have we joined now?"

2) You offer nothing of substance. For example, you don’t respond to Brooks when he points out:

"Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck."

Brooks is pointing out something profoundly important and revealing about Senator Obama who keeps insisting he's a new kind of leader we can trust.

But there’s ample evidence that Obama’s MSM flacks want to ignore that Rev. Wright is right when he tells us Obama is just "another politician."

I give Brooks a lot of credit for pointing that out and backing that up with specific examples which are facts we can believe in.

In the past you've made comments with which I've disagreed, but they've avoided ad hominems.


RedMountain said...

Good point, perhaps I should have not ad hominemed (LOL). Is Brooks doing that with his Fast Eddie and Dr. Barack terminology? Did you debate highlighting his article in your post?

David Brooks initially compared Duke's lacrosse scandal to the debauchery and questionable moral standards described in a Tom Wolfe book, then later penned the 'Witch Hunt' column and all was forgiven.

I give Brooks credit for knowing which way the wind is blowing before he throws someone under the bus himself. Just my opinion.