Holy Shit – David Brooks makes a good point!

I never thought I’d see the day, but David Brooks just made a point that made me slap my head and wonder why it didn’t occur to me before.  I dunno how he did it.

Brooks:

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

I don’t see that many will.  I don’t see how they can.  I thought the story from here was going to be “How will Obama blow it?”  But what I see coming is different, after reading those words.  The good story, and the only one nearly anyone can get away with, is the coronation of an American legend-to-be.  And if that is true, then the Obama campaign we’ve all maligned is actually a work of brilliance.  Because he hasn’t said anything that can really offend anyone.  Who wants to speak out against hope, against unity, against healing divides, much less to do so against a candidate whose very candidacy is a testament to the kind of progress this nation has made?

Indeed, is this displayed in any way better than by the pathetic nature of Paul Krugman’s swipe at Obama in his column today?  (As an aside, I am taking great satisfaction in watching Krugman’s unraveling as a columnist, which is clearly a result of the loss of his dispassionate eye for the truth as an economist which got him the gig in the first place.)  How, after today, can you possibly see anyone truly getting away with going after Barack Obama as “shallow”?  If he is shallow, then the entire American mythos is shallow (which may well be true, but not something anyone in politics can sell).

It is a dirty game, and I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton can play it as well as anyone.  But I’m having a hard time seeing how she can take Obama down.

(With the caveat that while all of this is somewhat interesting, I still don’t believe it particularly matters.)

11 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Brooks’s comment is like (operating from faulty memory here) Rush Limbaugh’s saying that the reason Donovan McNabb was starting was that people so desperately wanted a Black quarterback to succeed.  Well, you know, it makes me feel good to see, other things being equal, but not enough that it would outweigh any substantive disagreements.  I support Edwards over Obama and will happily support Hillary over him if I am ever convinced she deserves it.  (By the way, “When an [woman] is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?”)  If he’s shallow, people will say it.  People want to win the election and get a decent government; we don’t accomplish that by hiding our heads in the sand.

    Krugman’s disagreeing with you about economics is not “unraveling,” by the way.  Almost all of us disagree with you about economics here, and many of us remain raveled.

    • pfiore8 on January 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    again… the media telling us what will happen or how we feel.

    hey david… i’m still not voting for Sen. Obama.

Comments have been disabled.